Latest / Reformed Thinking / Gentle Shepherds: Why “Not Violent” Is a Non-Negotiable Qualification for Elders

Transcript

Gentle Shepherds: Why “Not Violent” Is a Non-Negotiable Qualification for Elders · Reformed Thinking

• 0:00
  Welcome to Reformed thinking. I have to be honest with you
• 0:03
  right out of the gate here. When I sat down to review the
• 0:06
  stack of sources for today's Deep dive, I genuinely thought
• 0:09
  there might have been a mistake. A mistake?
• 0:12
  How so? Well, I thought maybe I had
• 0:14
  picked up the wrong file or something because you know,
• 0:16
  usually on this show or wrestling with these massive
• 0:19
  high stakes theological knots. Sure.
• 0:22
  Things like the Trinity, covenant theology.
• 0:24
  Right, Big, complex topics. But today, the sources are
• 0:27
  pointing us to a qualification for leadership found in First
• 0:31
  Timothy 3.3 that feels, well, it feels like the bare minimum for
• 0:36
  being a civilized human being. It feels like a really low bar.
• 0:39
  An incredibly low bar. We're looking at the requirement
• 0:42
  that an elder or an overseer must be not violent.
• 0:46
  I mean, really, do we actually need a full hour to tell
• 0:49
  pastors, hey, don't punch the choir director?
• 0:51
  It feels like saying a requirement for being a pilot is
• 0:54
  try not to crash the plane on purpose.
• 0:56
  It just seems obvious. I get that, I really do.
• 0:59
  That's the first reaction most people have.
• 1:01
  On the surface, it does seem like a throwaway line doesn't.
• 1:04
  It it does. You just assume that if a man
• 1:07
  has gone through seminary and is standing in a pulpit, he
• 1:11
  probably isn't getting into fistfights in the parking lot
• 1:13
  after the service. You would hope not.
• 1:15
  But here's the reality. The sources we're looking at
• 1:17
  today, Gentle shepherds and the Shepherd's hands.
• 1:21
  They both argue that if you think this is just about
• 1:24
  physical brawling, you're missing about 90% of what Paul
• 1:28
  is actually doing in this text. OK, so I'm assuming we are not
• 1:31
  just talking about black eyes and broken noses then?
• 1:33
  We are definitely not. Think about it for a second.
• 1:35
  If Paul had to write this down, if the Holy Spirit inspired this
• 1:39
  specific restriction, it suggests that there's a type of
• 1:43
  violence that is much more subtle, much more common, and
• 1:47
  frankly, much more dangerous to the church.
• 1:49
  They can simple physical blow. More dangerous than a punch?
• 1:52
  Oh yes, because it's harder to see.
• 1:55
  We're talking about the character of the striker.
• 1:56
  A striker? OK, that sounds pretty ominous.
• 1:59
  It's the literal translation we're going to look at, and when
• 2:01
  you start to peel back the layers of this single
• 2:05
  qualification, you find it's not just about manners or having a
• 2:08
  good temperament. It connects directly to the
• 2:11
  Westminster Confession, to the nature of spiritual authority,
• 2:14
  and in the end, it gets to the very heart of whether a leader
• 2:18
  actually believes the gospel he claims to be preaching.
• 2:20
  Now that is a massive claim. You're saying a bad temper isn't
• 2:24
  just a personality flaw, it's a theological.
• 2:27
  Problem. I'm saying that according to
• 2:30
  these sources, it's a theological heresy that poses as
• 2:33
  a personality quirk. It's a deep seated denial of the
• 2:36
  gospel of grace, all right. That is a hook.
• 2:39
  I'm ready to be convinced. Let's get into the text itself.
• 2:42
  You mentioned the striker. Is that the actual word Paul is
• 2:44
  using here? It is the Greek word is
• 2:46
  plucktase. Plucktase.
• 2:47
  Right. And for those who enjoy the
• 2:48
  linguistic details, this is what scholars call a hapax Lego man
• 2:52
  in in the New Testament. A hapax, so it's rare.
• 2:55
  Extremely rare. It only shows up in these
• 2:58
  specific lists for elders in First Timothy and then again in
• 3:01
  Titus. It comes from the verb plessa,
• 3:03
  which means to smite or to hit. So if you translate it hyper
• 3:09
  literally, Paul is saying the overseer must not be a guy who,
• 3:13
  you know, throws hands. Which brings me back to my first
• 3:15
  point again. What's the early church just
• 3:17
  full of fight clubs? Why is this the word he reaches
• 3:21
  for? It feels so physical.
• 3:24
  Well, you have to put yourself in their shoes.
• 3:26
  Look at the cultural water they were swimming in.
• 3:28
  We tend to view a public loss of control as embarrassing, as a
• 3:32
  sign of weakness. Sure, you'd be mortified.
• 3:35
  But in the Greco Roman world, and even in some Jewish context
• 3:38
  of that time, physical force was seen differently.
• 3:40
  It could be seen as a valid rhetorical tool.
• 3:43
  Wait, valid? You could win an argument by
• 3:44
  hitting someone. That seems wild.
• 3:46
  Think about how public debates worked.
• 3:48
  The sources point out that a philosophical debate in the
• 3:50
  agora, the public square, didn't look like a modern academic
• 3:54
  conference. It wasn't.
• 3:55
  Polite. It was rowdy.
• 3:56
  It was rowdy. It was visceral.
• 3:58
  If you couldn't dominate your opponent with your intellect,
• 4:01
  physical intimidation was the next step up the ladder.
• 4:04
  It was seen by some as a sign of dominance, of alpha male
• 4:07
  strength. You overwhelm them with your
• 4:10
  argument, and if that doesn't work, you overwhelm them with
• 4:13
  your presence. So Paul is intentionally drawing
• 4:16
  a sharp line in the sand. He's saying the world's idea of
• 4:20
  a strong debater has no place in the church's view of a shepherd.
• 4:25
  Precisely. But the sources point out
• 4:27
  something fascinating from Plutarch, the Greek biographer.
• 4:31
  He wrote about this concept of the plot toes, but in the
• 4:33
  context of education of teaching.
• 4:36
  OK, how did he frame it? He said that for a teacher to
• 4:39
  strike a student was, and this is the key phrase, a failure of
• 4:42
  pedagogy. A failure of pedagogy.
• 4:44
  So you mean if you have to hit the kid it's because you aren't
• 4:47
  smart enough to actually teach him?
• 4:48
  That is the point. It's an admission of
• 4:50
  incompetence. It's a confession of failure.
• 4:52
  Violence is the tool you resort to when you have run out of
• 4:56
  wisdom, when your words have failed, when you've run out of
• 4:59
  persuasive arguments. So when Paul bans the Plutase
• 5:02
  from the pulpit, he's not just saying be nice or keep your
• 5:05
  hands to yourself. He is saying if you have to
• 5:08
  bully the sheep to get them to follow you, you aren't a
• 5:10
  shepherd, you are a failure as a teacher.
• 5:13
  That puts a completely different spin on it.
• 5:15
  It's not about being a hot head. It's about being incompetent.
• 5:18
  Violence is actually a confession that you don't know
• 5:21
  how to lead with words and with wisdom.
• 5:23
  That's the argument, the blow, whether it's physical or is an
• 5:27
  admission that your persuasion has failed.
• 5:29
  OK, now I want to look at the context here, because Paul
• 5:32
  doesn't just list these words randomly, they're always in
• 5:34
  relationship with each other. Where does Plutase sit in the
• 5:38
  list in First Timothy 3? The placement is incredibly
• 5:42
  instructive. You're right in First Timothy
• 5:43
  3.3, not violently. Plutase is paired directly with,
• 5:47
  Not a drunkard. OK, not a drunkard.
• 5:49
  That seems like an interesting pairing.
• 5:51
  Why those two together? What's the connection?
• 5:53
  Well, think about the mechanics of drunkenness.
• 5:55
  What does alcohol do to a man's character?
• 5:57
  It lowers his inhibitions. It takes the filter off.
• 6:01
  It takes the filter off. It unmasks a lack of self
• 6:04
  governance. The sources argue.
• 6:06
  The link is all about a loss of control.
• 6:08
  The drunkard loses control of his faculties, of his speech, of
• 6:11
  his judgement. The violent man loses control of
• 6:14
  his temper, of his response to provocation.
• 6:17
  They're two sides of the same coin.
• 6:18
  The coin being a failure of self mastery.
• 6:21
  A failure of self mastery. They're both about letting a
• 6:24
  base impulse Dr. The bus instead of being governed by the Spirit.
• 6:28
  And what about in Titus? I know the lists are similar but
• 6:31
  not identical. In Titus 1.7 the grouping is
• 6:34
  even tighter and I think even more revealing.
• 6:37
  Not violent is put in a group with arrogant, quick tempered
• 6:41
  and greedy for gain. Wow, that's a rogues gallery of
• 6:45
  bad leadership traits right there.
• 6:46
  Arrogance, a bad temper, greed and violence.
• 6:50
  They all seem to feed each other, don't they?
• 6:51
  They absolutely do. An arrogant man thinks he
• 6:54
  deserves to get his way. When he doesn't, he becomes
• 6:56
  quick tempered. If that doesn't work, he might
• 6:58
  resort to violence to seize control.
• 7:00
  It's a downward spiral. But the text doesn't just give
• 7:02
  us negative, it gives us the positive alternative.
• 7:05
  It does, and this is the most illuminating part of the text,
• 7:09
  the contrast. Paul doesn't just tell us what
• 7:11
  the elder isn't, he tells us what he is.
• 7:14
  And the text contrasts violent with the Greek word epiechus.
• 7:19
  Epiechus, I've heard that translated a few ways, Gentle is
• 7:22
  common. What's the best way for us to
• 7:24
  understand it? Gentle is OK, but I agree it can
• 7:27
  sound a bit soft or weak to our modern ears.
• 7:30
  We think of someone who is passive, who can be pushed
• 7:33
  around a. Doormat.
• 7:34
  Right. And that's not what Paul means.
• 7:37
  A better translation might be equitable, or my personal
• 7:40
  favorite from the sources, sweetly reasonable.
• 7:42
  Sweetly reasonable. That's a beautiful phrase.
• 7:45
  Isn't it? Aristotle actually defined FBA
• 7:47
  keys as the willingness to waive the strict letter of the law for
• 7:50
  the sake of mercy. It's knowing when not to demand
• 7:53
  your full rights. So it's the opposite of the
• 7:54
  striker. The complete antithesis.
• 7:57
  Violence and gentleness are rival instincts.
• 7:59
  The violent man, the placos, demands his way.
• 8:02
  He insists on his rights. He pushes forward, creating
• 8:04
  friction. The gentleman, the Fbas, yields
• 8:07
  his rights for the sake of others.
• 8:09
  He absorbs friction instead of creating it.
• 8:11
  So we've established what the word mean and where it sits in
• 8:14
  the text, but I want to move to the theological Why?
• 8:17
  Why is this such a big deal to God?
• 8:19
  Why isn't this just a matter of, you know, personality?
• 8:22
  Some guys are loud, some guys are quiet.
• 8:24
  Why does this rise to the level of a non negotiable
• 8:27
  disqualification? This is where we have to zoom
• 8:30
  out and look at the covenantal shift between the Old and New
• 8:33
  Testaments. We have to look at how God views
• 8:36
  his people, the flock. The sources point us back to the
• 8:40
  Old Testament, specifically to Ezekiel 34.
• 8:43
  In that chapter, God brings what is effectively A lawsuit against
• 8:47
  the shepherds of Israel. He indicts them.
• 8:49
  A lawsuit and what's the charge? The charge in Ezekiel 34 verse 4
• 8:53
  is that they ruled the flock with force and harshness.
• 8:57
  Force and harshness. That sounds exactly like the
• 8:59
  striker we just defined. It is.
• 9:00
  It's the Old Testament equivalent.
• 9:02
  And God's judgement is severe, he says.
• 9:05
  Because of that harshness, the sheep were scattered, they were
• 9:07
  preyed upon, they were lost. God was furious with those
• 9:10
  shepherds. But then something changes in
• 9:12
  the new covenant. Something fundamental changes in
• 9:16
  acts 20, verse 28 Paul is giving his farewell address to the
• 9:20
  ephesian elders, and he tells them to pay careful attention to
• 9:25
  care for the Church of God, which he obtained with his own
• 9:28
  blood the. Blood.
• 9:29
  Price. The blood price that changes
• 9:31
  everything about property rights.
• 9:34
  Think of it this way. If you're a manager of a store
• 9:37
  and you carelessly break some merchandise, the owner might be
• 9:40
  annoyed. You might take it out of your
• 9:42
  paycheck. But if you were watching
• 9:44
  someone's child, a child they suffered for, a child they love
• 9:47
  more than life itself, and you mistreat that child, you are
• 9:52
  dealing with a completely different level of righteous
• 9:54
  fury. So the implication is you cannot
• 9:56
  treat precious blood bought property with carelessness or
• 9:59
  roughness. The value is just too high.
• 10:01
  Infinitely high violence treats the flock, is a thing to be
• 10:04
  controlled and resource to be managed or exploited.
• 10:06
  It denies Christ's ownership. It's a leader implicitly saying
• 10:09
  this is mine to do with as I please.
• 10:11
  But it isn't. It's his and he paid the
• 10:14
  ultimate price for it. To strike one of his sheep is to
• 10:16
  show contempt for the price he paid.
• 10:18
  OK. I want to pivot now to the
• 10:19
  systematic theology of this because the research notes
• 10:22
  mentioned something about sears of authority.
• 10:25
  I know in Reformed circles we talk a lot about the two
• 10:27
  kingdoms, the separation of church and state.
• 10:30
  But how does not violent fit into that whole framework?
• 10:35
  This is where it gets really interesting for your listeners
• 10:37
  who love the Westminster Confession.
• 10:40
  The Divine's the men who wrote the confession were meticulous
• 10:44
  about this. They made a massive distinction
• 10:45
  between two types of authority given by God, the authority of
• 10:49
  the sword and the authority of the keys.
• 10:51
  OK, the sword and the keys break those down for us.
• 10:53
  Who gets the sword? The civil magistrate, the
• 10:56
  government. Westminster Chapter 23 is clear.
• 10:59
  The government's job is to maintain public order and punish
• 11:01
  evil doers, and to do that, God gives them the sword.
• 11:05
  Which implies coercion. Force it does.
• 11:08
  If you break the law, the state has the God-given authority to
• 11:12
  physically restrain you, to find you, to imprison you.
• 11:15
  That is the proper function of the sword.
• 11:17
  It is coercive by design. Which makes sense.
• 11:19
  You can't just ask a bank robber nicely to please stop robbing
• 11:22
  the bank. You need the threat of force.
• 11:24
  Correct. But here's the rub.
• 11:27
  The Church, according to Chapter 30 of the Confession, does not
• 11:30
  hold the sword. The Church holds the authority
• 11:33
  of the keys. The key is to the Kingdom of
• 11:36
  Heaven. Yes, and that authority is
• 11:37
  exercised through the preaching of the Word and through the
• 11:40
  administration and church discipline.
• 11:42
  It is, and this is the key distinction, ministerial and
• 11:45
  declarative, not coercive. Ministerial, not coercive.
• 11:49
  So unpack that in a practical sense.
• 11:51
  Let's say a pastor is in a session meeting and he's yelling
• 11:54
  at his elders, or he slams a book on the table to make a
• 11:56
  point. What is happening theologically
• 11:59
  in that moment? The moment he does that, he is
• 12:01
  committing A profound category error.
• 12:04
  He is reaching for the sword. He is trying to use force, even
• 12:08
  if it's just emotional force or sheer volume, to compel
• 12:12
  obedience. He's trying to act like the
• 12:13
  government, not the church. He is confusing his tools, and
• 12:17
  the sources argue this is not just bad manners, it's actually
• 12:20
  an ecclesiological heresy. When a pastor intimidates the
• 12:23
  flock, he isn't just being a jerk, he is attempting to steal
• 12:27
  an authority that God is exclusively delegated to the
• 12:29
  civil magistrate. He's trying to rule by fear, but
• 12:32
  Christ's Kingdom is ruled by persuasion and love.
• 12:35
  And that leads directly to the issue of conscience, doesn't it?
• 12:38
  Westminster Chapter 20 is all about the liberty of conscience.
• 12:42
  It does. That chapter famously states God
• 12:44
  alone is Lord of the conscience. A violent elder, someone who
• 12:48
  rules by fear, intimidation or manipulation, binds the
• 12:52
  consciences of his people to himself.
• 12:53
  Instead of to God. Instead of to Christ, he forces
• 12:56
  people to obey him. Rather than God, he usurps
• 12:59
  Christ's unique role. If I obey my pastor simply
• 13:02
  because I am terrified of his temper, I'm not rendering
• 13:04
  obedience to Christ. I am serving a man's ego.
• 13:08
  My conscience has been taken captive by fear, not by the
• 13:10
  Word. That is a chilling thought, that
• 13:13
  a bad temper is actually a form of usurping Christ's headship.
• 13:17
  But I want to get very practical here because I think most of us,
• 13:21
  when we hear violent pastor, we imagine a movie villain, we
• 13:24
  imagine the guy flipping tables in the temple.
• 13:27
  But the sources suggest the striker is often much more
• 13:29
  subtle. Oh, much more subtle and
• 13:31
  honestly much more damaging in the long run because it's harder
• 13:34
  to pin down and confront The sources.
• 13:37
  Break this down into what they call an anatomy of violence.
• 13:40
  OK, let's walk through that anatomy.
• 13:42
  What does this look like on a Tuesday morning staff meeting,
• 13:45
  not just in a bar fight? Well, let's start with a
• 13:48
  physical, but not the contact sport kind.
• 13:51
  Think about territorial violence.
• 13:54
  The sources talk about the use of physical space to intimidate.
• 13:57
  What do you mean by that? Does the pastor loom when
• 14:00
  someone disagrees with him in a meeting?
• 14:01
  Does he stand up while they remain seated?
• 14:03
  Oh, that's a classic power move. I've seen that in the corporate
• 14:06
  world 1000 times. It's a total dominance move.
• 14:10
  It's non verbally communicating. I am bigger and more powerful
• 14:13
  than you. Or another example the sources
• 14:16
  give is blocking the exit. Imagine a counseling scenario.
• 14:20
  Maybe a woman in a small office with a male pastor.
• 14:23
  If he positions his chair or his body between her and the door,
• 14:27
  he's introduced A subtle physical threat into the room.
• 14:29
  Wow, he's saying without words, You are trapped here until I say
• 14:33
  we are done. And that triggers A primal fight
• 14:36
  or flight response in the nervous system.
• 14:38
  You can't even hear the advice he's giving because your brain
• 14:40
  is just screaming danger unsafe. He has created an unsafe
• 14:45
  environment which is the exact opposite of what a shepherd
• 14:47
  should do. It is.
• 14:49
  And then there is the violence of the tongue.
• 14:51
  And I don't just mean yelling. Yelling is obvious.
• 14:53
  The sources use this incredible phrase Truth without patience.
• 14:57
  Truth without patience that sticks out.
• 14:59
  What does that mean in practice? It means using a Bible verse
• 15:02
  like a bludgeon. You might be technically
• 15:05
  theologically correct in the proposition you are stating, but
• 15:08
  if you deliver that truth with contempt, if you use it to shut
• 15:11
  someone down rather than to build them up, you are being
• 15:14
  violent. You are using the Word of God to
• 15:17
  win an argument rather than to win your brother.
• 15:19
  It's weaponizing the Bible, using the text not as a scalpel
• 15:22
  for healing, but as a club for beating.
• 15:25
  It is. This also often manifests as
• 15:27
  sarcasm. We often dismiss sarcasm is just
• 15:30
  a personality type, a specific kind of humor.
• 15:34
  But the root of the word sarcastine means to tear flesh.
• 15:38
  It is designed to belittle, to wound.
• 15:40
  A leader who relies on sarcasm to keep his subordinates in line
• 15:44
  is a violent leader. Period.
• 15:45
  What about emotional or relational violence?
• 15:47
  This feels even more subtle. This is where we get into the
• 15:49
  idea of domineering, which Peter warns against in First Peter 5.
• 15:53
  This is retaliation. Someone disagrees with you
• 15:55
  publicly, so you freeze them out privately.
• 15:57
  Silent treatment. The silent treatment, or
• 16:01
  isolating critics or threatening relationships.
• 16:05
  You make it clear that if people cross you, they will lose your
• 16:07
  favor, maybe even their place in the community.
• 16:09
  You create a culture of fear. And this is where we get the
• 16:12
  false peace. I read that part in the notes,
• 16:15
  the idea that silence doesn't equal unity.
• 16:17
  Right. This is so deceptive.
• 16:19
  You walk into a church and nobody is arguing.
• 16:22
  The board meetings are short and efficient.
• 16:24
  The votes are always unanimous and an outsider might think,
• 16:27
  wow, look at the unity God has given this church.
• 16:29
  But it's not real unity. It's not, the sources say.
• 16:32
  You have to scratch the surface. Is it genuine spirit LED unity
• 16:37
  or is it a hostage situation? Are people agreeing because they
• 16:41
  are joyfully aligned with the vision, or are they agreeing
• 16:44
  because they know that anyone who raises A dissenting hand
• 16:47
  gets their head bitten off? It's a piece born of terror.
• 16:49
  It's the piece of walking on egg shells.
• 16:52
  That is the universal symptom of a violent leader.
• 16:54
  If the staff, the elders of the family feel like their primary
• 16:57
  job is to manage the leaders emotional state to avoid an
• 17:01
  explosion, you have a plac dose in the pulpit.
• 17:03
  And finally, there's a category. The source is called spiritual
• 17:06
  violence or spiritual abuse. This is perhaps the most
• 17:09
  grievous form because it weaponizes God himself.
• 17:13
  It is when a leader uses the phrase God says to enforce his
• 17:17
  own personal preferences or administrative decisions.
• 17:20
  God told me we need a new building, and if you question
• 17:23
  it, you're questioning God. That's a classic example.
• 17:26
  Or threatening God's judgement on someone for disagreeing with
• 17:29
  their strategy. It's treating people as means to
• 17:32
  an end, as resources, as labor, money, attendance numbers,
• 17:36
  rather than as souls to be shepherded and cared for.
• 17:40
  So we have defined the striker, we've looked at the theology and
• 17:43
  we've seen what it looks like in practice.
• 17:45
  But we're a Christian show and we need to get to the very
• 17:47
  center of this. We need to talk about Christ.
• 17:49
  How does this qualification connect directly to the person
• 17:52
  and work of Jesus? This is the law and gospel
• 17:55
  application of the whole issue. First we have to look at the
• 17:58
  pattern of Christ. Jesus had every right in the
• 18:01
  universe to be the ultimate plague, the ultimate striker.
• 18:04
  He had all authority. All authority in Matthew 26 in
• 18:09
  Garden Gethsemane. As he's being arrested, he tells
• 18:12
  his disciples he could have called on his father and be
• 18:14
  given 12 legions of angels. Instantly He had the ability to
• 18:18
  strike down his enemies with a word.
• 18:19
  But he didn't. He absolutely did not.
• 18:22
  First, Peter 2.23 gives us the pattern.
• 18:25
  When he was reviled, he did not revile in return.
• 18:28
  When he suffered, he did not threaten.
• 18:30
  He absorbed the violence of the world into his own body.
• 18:33
  So the logic for the elder is simple.
• 18:35
  Inescapable. The under shepherd must resemble
• 18:38
  the master Shepherd. A shepherd is supposed to smell
• 18:40
  like the pasture and the sheep, not like the battlefield.
• 18:43
  If Jesus, who had all authority, laid down his rights in his
• 18:46
  power to save the sheep, how can an elder who only has a
• 18:50
  derivative and temporary authority dare to use force to
• 18:53
  control them? And this brings us to the law
• 18:54
  and gospel distinction you mentioned earlier.
• 18:56
  Right. The law, the command be not
• 18:59
  violent. It condemns us.
• 19:01
  It shows us what's in our natural heart.
• 19:03
  Every single man has a striker inside him.
• 19:06
  We all want to win arguments. We all want to control our
• 19:09
  environment. We all have that flash of rage
• 19:11
  when we're crossed. The law exposes that.
• 19:14
  But the gospel. The gospel is the good news that
• 19:16
  Christ died for violent men, and you don't have to look any
• 19:20
  further than the man who wrote these words to Timothy, Apostle
• 19:24
  Paul. Saul of Tarsus.
• 19:26
  Before Christ met him on the road to Damascus, what was he?
• 19:29
  He was a violent persecutor, Acts says.
• 19:31
  He was breathing out threats and murder against the disciples of
• 19:34
  the Lord. He was the quintessential
• 19:36
  striker. So Paul isn't writing this from
• 19:38
  some position of moral superiority.
• 19:41
  He's writing as a converted striker, a man saved from his
• 19:43
  own violence. That's it.
• 19:45
  A man meets his qualification not by white knuckling his
• 19:47
  temper and just trying harder. He meets it by being united to
• 19:51
  Christ. The old man, the striker, is
• 19:54
  crucified with Christ. The new man is raised in the
• 19:56
  gentleness and patience of Christ.
• 19:58
  And you mentioned a connection to the Atonement itself.
• 20:01
  Yes, and this is so critical. If we truly believe in
• 20:05
  justification by faith alone, then we cannot demand
• 20:08
  righteousness from others through force.
• 20:10
  Say that again, that connects our doctrine to our behavior in
• 20:13
  a really practical way. If we believe that we are saved
• 20:16
  by grace, not by our own works or our own ability to be
• 20:20
  righteous, then we know we can't force anyone else to be good.
• 20:24
  We can't beat righteousness into people.
• 20:26
  We can't scare them into holiness.
• 20:28
  The war is over. Romans 8 says there is no
• 20:31
  condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
• 20:34
  Therefore, there should be no coercion from those who lead His
• 20:36
  church. Our methods must match our
• 20:39
  message. OK, now I can hear a listener,
• 20:41
  maybe a guy who is a bit more naturally aggressive or zealous,
• 20:45
  saying, wait a minute here. Are you saying elders have to be
• 20:48
  soft? Are we supposed to just let
• 20:50
  heretics run wild in the church? What happened to being bold and
• 20:53
  contending for the faith? We need to make some careful
• 20:55
  distinctions here. Not violent doesn't mean
• 20:57
  doormat. That is an absolutely necessary
• 20:59
  clarification. The sources are very, very clear
• 21:02
  on this point. Not violent does not mean
• 21:05
  pacifist. When it comes to heresy or
• 21:07
  serious sin, Biblical firmness is not just an option, it's a
• 21:11
  requirement of the office. So elders are called to fight in
• 21:14
  a sense. They are.
• 21:16
  Titus 1.9 is explicit. An elder must hold firm to the
• 21:20
  trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give
• 21:23
  instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who
• 21:26
  contradict it. Elders must rebuke wolves.
• 21:30
  They must refute error. So what is the difference?
• 21:32
  What's the line between biblical firmness and sinful violence?
• 21:36
  How do you rebuke a wolf without becoming a striker yourself?
• 21:38
  It comes down to two things, the goal and the method.
• 21:41
  The goal of firmness is the good of the person being rebuked and
• 21:44
  the purity of the church. The goal of violence is the
• 21:47
  protection of the leader's ego and control.
• 21:49
  And the method. Firmness relies on the authority
• 21:51
  of Scripture. Violence relies on the force of
• 21:53
  personality and pressure. Firmness appeals to the
• 21:56
  conscience with God's Word. Violence tries to overwhelm the
• 21:59
  will with fear. I like the image the source
• 22:01
  material gave. Firmness can weep while it
• 22:04
  warns. Violence smirks while it wounds.
• 22:07
  That is the tell, isn't it? When you are in the act of
• 22:09
  correcting someone, does it break your heart for them, or
• 22:13
  does it secretly feed your pride that you were right?
• 22:15
  Is there grief in your voice or a swagger in your step?
• 22:17
  And this applies to formal church discipline too.
• 22:20
  Absolutely. Church discipline must be
• 22:22
  measured. As Paul says in 2nd Corinthians
• 22:24
  2, it must always aim for restoration, not destruction.
• 22:28
  The moment discipline stops being a redemptive process and
• 22:31
  starts being a tool to silence a critic or protect the
• 22:34
  institution's reputation, it has crossed the line into sinful
• 22:38
  domination. And the sources also addressed
• 22:40
  this toxic masculinity angle explicitly.
• 22:43
  There's a certain kind of culture that can crop up around
• 22:45
  this. They do.
• 22:46
  They directly reject what they called a young, restless and
• 22:49
  Reformed era where in some circles bullying was excused as
• 22:52
  boldness. There was this idea floating
• 22:54
  around that being a jerk for Jesus was a sign of theological
• 22:58
  conviction. Right that being harsh was a
• 23:00
  sign you really cared about the truth.
• 23:02
  But the sources argue that's a complete distortion of biblical
• 23:05
  manhood. True biblical masculinity uses
• 23:09
  strengths to protect the weak. It does not use it to pulverize
• 23:12
  them. A man who cannot control his
• 23:15
  temper is not a strong man. He is a weak man, enslaved by
• 23:19
  his own passions. Gentleness is a fruit of the
• 23:22
  Spirit, a sign of true strength under control.
• 23:25
  OK, so let's get really practical for our listeners.
• 23:27
  Let's say I'm a church member or I'm on a pastor search
• 23:30
  committee. How do I spot this?
• 23:32
  Because presumably a candidate is going to be on their absolute
• 23:35
  best behavior during the interview process.
• 23:38
  They're not going to be flipping payables in the fellowship hall
• 23:40
  while we're asking them about their soteriology.
• 23:43
  How do we test for this not violent qualification?
• 23:47
  This is the diagnostic section, and it's so crucial the sources
• 23:50
  suggest a few specific practical tests.
• 23:53
  The 1st is what they call the conflict test.
• 23:54
  The conflict test. Don't just ask if he behaves
• 23:57
  when things are going his way. Everyone is nice when they're
• 23:59
  getting what they want. You have to watch him when he is
• 24:01
  crossed. When someone tells him no.
• 24:03
  Exactly. Or when someone offers a
• 24:05
  critique of his sermon or questions one of his decisions,
• 24:09
  what is his immediate gut level reaction?
• 24:12
  Does he listen? Does he ask clarifying questions
• 24:14
  to make sure he understands? Does he show humility or does he
• 24:18
  immediately escalate? Does he get defensive?
• 24:21
  Does he try to punish the person who disagreed, maybe with a
• 24:24
  sarcastic comment or by shutting them down?
• 24:27
  That's a great test. A person's character isn't
• 24:29
  revealed in agreement, but in disagreement.
• 24:31
  That's right, the second test is the home test.
• 24:34
  If a man does not know how to manage his own household.
• 24:37
  How will he care for God's church?
• 24:40
  First Timothy 3.5 The home is the proving ground.
• 24:44
  It's the laboratory of a man's character.
• 24:47
  But we have to be careful here. We aren't looking for a
• 24:48
  perfectly silent Victorian family where the children are
• 24:51
  seen and not heard. That can be its own form of
• 24:54
  tyranny. Because what are we looking for?
• 24:55
  We're looking at the dynamic. Is there joy, is there grace, or
• 24:58
  is there fear in the eyes of his wife and children?
• 25:01
  Does his family feel safe to fail, to disagree, to be
• 25:04
  themselves? Or do they feel like they have
• 25:06
  to constantly perform to keep Dad happy?
• 25:09
  Is the father a tyrant? That's the question.
• 25:12
  Biblical headship is sacrificial.
• 25:14
  It's about dying for your bride, not terrifying her.
• 25:18
  The sources are blunt about this.
• 25:20
  If the children flinch when the father raises his hand, you do
• 25:24
  not put that man in the pulpit. That's heavy.
• 25:26
  And then there's the reputation test, right?
• 25:28
  Talk to people. Don't just talk to the
• 25:30
  references he provides. Talk to outsiders, talk to
• 25:33
  former subordinates, former colleagues.
• 25:36
  And here's a key distinction the sources make.
• 25:38
  You have to distinguish between a man who is genuinely repented
• 25:41
  of a bad temper and a man who has just gotten better at hiding
• 25:45
  it. What's the defense?
• 25:46
  Repentance leaves a long, observable track record of new
• 25:50
  patterns of gentleness. Concealment just leaves a trail
• 25:53
  of silence and broken relationships.
• 25:56
  A repentant man will own his past failures.
• 25:58
  A concealer will blame others or minimize them.
• 26:01
  The source is also warned about something they call the
• 26:03
  pragmatism trap. I think this is where a lot of
• 26:06
  churches get into big trouble. It's so common.
• 26:08
  It's the temptation to hire the strongman because he gets things
• 26:11
  done. Maybe the church finances are a
• 26:13
  mess or attendance is dropping and the search committee thinks
• 26:16
  we need a guy who can come in here and clean house.
• 26:19
  We need a shark, a real CEO type.
• 26:21
  But the sources say results do not justify ungodly methods.
• 26:25
  You can't separate the what from the how.
• 26:26
  You can't. A wolf is not a strong shepherd.
• 26:29
  He might increase the budget. He might get a new building
• 26:32
  built. But if in the process he
• 26:34
  scatters the sheep, wounds the consciences of the flock, and
• 26:38
  creates a culture of fear, he has failed the biblical mandate.
• 26:42
  You cannot trade character for competence.
• 26:44
  The character qualification comes first.
• 26:46
  So what if we fail the test? What if a church realizes, uh
• 26:51
  oh, our pastor is a striker? What is the remedial action?
• 26:54
  Well, first and foremost, the sources are clear.
• 26:57
  A pattern of violence, whether it's physical, verbal, or
• 27:00
  emotional bullying, disqualifies a man from office.
• 27:03
  It isn't a growth area to work on while he stays in the pulpit.
• 27:06
  It is a disqualifier according to the Word of God.
• 27:08
  What if it's physical? What if actual laws are broken?
• 27:11
  The sources are very firm on this.
• 27:13
  If laws are broken, physical assault, domestic abuse,
• 27:17
  anything like that, the state must be involved.
• 27:20
  Remember the distinction of authority.
• 27:21
  The state holds the sword for justice.
• 27:23
  It is not betrayal or gossip to report crimes to the police.
• 27:27
  It is actually honoring God's ordained institution of civil
• 27:31
  government. The church handles the spiritual
• 27:33
  discipline. The state handles the criminal
• 27:35
  justice. They are separate but necessary.
• 27:38
  And what about restoration? Can a violent man be restored to
• 27:42
  ministry? We need real nuance here.
• 27:44
  Restoration to fellowship with genuine repentance always.
• 27:48
  The gospel is for everyone, including failed pastors.
• 27:51
  But restoration to office? That is a very different
• 27:55
  question. Because eldership is a trust,
• 27:57
  not a right. Exactly.
• 27:58
  It's a trust, and some sins, by their very nature, permanently
• 28:02
  break that trust in a public way.
• 28:03
  It's like the teacher who hits the student.
• 28:05
  You might forgive that teacher, but you probably aren't going to
• 28:07
  let them back into the classroom with your kids.
• 28:09
  The trust is gone. So if it were to happen, it
• 28:12
  would need to be a long long Rd. Any potential return to office
• 28:16
  would require long term observable fruit of gentleness.
• 28:19
  We are talking years, not weeks or months.
• 28:23
  An apology, even a tearful 1, is not enough.
• 28:26
  The character has to be fundamentally rebuilt by the
• 28:29
  Spirit from the ground up, and that takes time for the fruit to
• 28:32
  grow and be tested. As we move toward the end of our
• 28:35
  time together, I want to talk about how this integrates into
• 28:38
  our corporate life as a church. The sources mentioned that our
• 28:42
  liturgy, the way we worship on a Sunday morning, actually trains
• 28:46
  us out of violence. I find that fascinating.
• 28:48
  I love this part because it shows that Sunday morning isn't
• 28:51
  just a lecture. It's a formative practice.
• 28:54
  It's spiritual formation. Think about the songs we sing.
• 28:57
  When we sing song 46, he breaks the bow and shatters the spear.
• 29:00
  We are corporately reminding ourselves that God is the
• 29:03
  warrior. God is the one who fights for
• 29:05
  his people. So we don't have to be.
• 29:07
  Right. It quiets the striker spirit
• 29:08
  within us. If God is my defender, if God is
• 29:10
  writing for me, I don't need to fight for myself in simple ways.
• 29:13
  My defensiveness can melt away. Then there is our corporate
• 29:17
  confession of sin. We should be confessing specific
• 29:20
  sins of the temper and the tongue.
• 29:22
  Not just we have sinned, but Lord, we confess that we have
• 29:25
  murdered with our tongues this week.
• 29:27
  We have torn others down with our words.
• 29:29
  Forgive us. And finally, the Lord's Supper.
• 29:32
  The ultimate sermon against violence.
• 29:34
  Christ was broken so we could be made whole.
• 29:36
  His body was struck so ours wouldn't have to be.
• 29:39
  The sources talk about the practice of fencing the table,
• 29:41
  publicly warning the unrepentant abuser not to partake for their
• 29:45
  own good. It's a protection for the church
• 29:47
  and for the Sinner, but for the repentant, the Supper is where
• 29:51
  we come to feed on the grace of the gentle shepherd who laid
• 29:54
  down his life for us. This has been a really deep dive
• 29:57
  into just two little words from First Timothy.
• 30:00
  Not violent me pluck days, but it opens up a whole world of
• 30:04
  theology, ecclesiology and practical Christian living.
• 30:08
  It really does. It shows us that this isn't some
• 30:10
  low bar or throwaway line. This qualification is a vital
• 30:14
  protection for the precious blood bot sheep of Christ and
• 30:18
  it's a non negotiable requirement for any man who
• 30:20
  would dare to represent the Prince of Peace.
• 30:22
  To wrap this all up, the sources suggest a diagnostic question
• 30:25
  for you, the listener, to consider this week, and it
• 30:28
  applies whether you're a leader, a parent, a boss, or just a
• 30:31
  friend. The question is this do the
• 30:34
  people around you obey you or agree with you because they are
• 30:37
  genuinely persuaded by your love and your example, or because
• 30:41
  they are afraid of your reaction if they don't?
• 30:43
  That is the question, yeah. The answer reveals whether we
• 30:46
  are walking in the way of the striker or in the way of the
• 30:49
  shepherd. Thanks for listening to Reformed
• 30:51
  Thinking.