Eight lessons on leadership from 1 Timothy 3
1 Timothy 3.1-13 is a reasonably straightforward passage. There are one or two exegetical questions (perhaps particularly in v11). But given that it is found in a letter addressed to an individual with a church listening in (note the plural “you” in 6:21), what are we to learn from this great list of qualifications? Here are eight truths which every church member needs to grasp.
1. Christ appoints leaders; it is the church’s role to discern his mind (1.18; 3.1-13 and Eph 4.11). We have to hold the tension between the supernatural calling of leaders (seen explicitly in Ephesians 4 and implicitly in the prophetic setting apart of Timothy) and the fact that the church is given a checklist of sorts in 1 Tim 3.1-13. This almost certainly means we need to make a deliberate change in some of the language we use – we are not, for example, “choosing” leaders but, rather, applying wisdom to seek the man of God’s choosing.
2. If the church is to fight false teaching, it needs godly leaders in appropriate roles (3.1-13). The thrust of the letter is that Timothy is to lead the charge against heresy. This is done by having godly praying (which occupies the bulk of chapter 3) and godly living (chapter 4 onwards), underpinned by godly leaders (chapter 3).
3. It does not necessarily follow that the most gifted men and women are the most suitable (1.20; 2 Tim 2.17; 2 Tim 4.14). Our natural inclination is always to look to gifts before character. Of course, we want a man who can preach! However, that is not the emphasis of the passage. Although see (6) below.
4. It is clear that those who start well do not always continue well, and so we must use this text to encourage leaders and pray (1.20). Alexander and Hymenaeus are sobering reminders that leaders who start well do not necessarily continue. In other words, a church should not see 3.1-13 as a static entry point to leadership, but a means of bearing leaders up in prayer and deliberately and intentionally encouraging them.
5. We are not looking for perfectly formed leaders, but we should see godliness and progress (3.1-13; 4.15). There is a danger, of course, that this could lead us to look for the perfect leaders who never sin. I only know a couple of people like that. (That is a joke, for the uninitiated). Timothy himself is to make public progress and we should expect the same in all our leaders. There will be some sins which disbar them from leadership; but in other areas, we should expect to see growth as leaders grapple with sin.
6. Having said all this, gifting is not unimportant (v2, v4, v10, v12). It is tempting to make so much of the character qualities that we end up making leaders of godly incompetents. There are explicit references to gifting the passage and there is an implied (particularly from the negative commands in chapter 2) context that those being considered are gifted to lead.
7. Good leaders benefit the church AND “save themselves” (3.13; 4.16). We can sometimes make leadership a real burden which implies that those who lead do so at great personal cost with no benefit whatsoever. Not so. Verse 13 is clear and reinforced by 4:16. Serving as a leader is a joy and delight and does us good!
8. Leaders also teach by example, so their flourishing is for our good (3.1-13; 4.12). Timothy is to make himself an example, and so when we wisely apply 1 Tim 3 to our own leadership selections, we are actually making decisions about what we want to look like ourselves.
1 Timothy 3 – preaching implications
How do you preach a passage like 1 Timothy 3.1-13? At one level it is just a list of qualifications for eldership and diaconal roles. In a normal sermon I would preach a good proportion of exegesis and then some application (although not in so linear a way). In this sermon, my approach is reversed. I’m going to do a very little exegesis (it’s for a normal church congregation). But for the most part I’m going to concentrate on the implications that arise from the passage set in its context. I’m not making that my normal diet of preaching, but in this case, it is more appropriate to church members (amongst whom are a scattering of leaders) to spend a good amount of time helping them draw out the implications that arise directly from the passage and its wider setting in the context of 1 Timothy.
Let’s be honest about porn
I’ve just finished reading one of the most traumatic books I’ve ever read. Kat Banyard’s Pimp Nation is an assessment of the sexualised culture we live in as seen through the scope of prostitution, pornography and associated issues. Banyard is not a Christian. She works for an aggressive feminist lobby group called Feminista UK. I’m guessing we don’t have a whole heap in common. Nevertheless, this is an excellent book (Note: it’s not for the faint-hearted; I feel I have read it so you don’t have to!)
In it, Banyard lays bare some of the myths of the adult world. She demolishes several arguments about prostitution (showing, along the way, how those who pimp prostitutes often win support craftily by using language of sex ‘trade’ or sex ‘workers’ thereby legitismising it). I think some of what she writes about prostitution would find agreement amongst our evangelical constituency (though I’m guessing many of us would be shocked to know exactly what goes on and how abusive it is; for the record she nails prostitution as a clear form of sexual abuse which would not be tolerated in other parts of society).
However, it is her writing about porn which is especially helpful, demolishing the notion, often bandied around that porn is fantasy. She points out the absurdity of a school education programme which encourages pupils to play ‘real sex/fantasy sex’ putting porn acts into two categories to try to show pupils that some thing that they see on screen are not for real relationships. But, argues Banyard, the very fact that they are on screen, graphically enacted, means that they are real for some.
We have thus anonymised porn and made it ‘a little harmless fun.’ “Pornography isn’t fantasy – it’s a corporeal trade that extracts profits from sexual abuse, fulfilling a demand that sex inequality created.” Porn is sexual abuse. She writes “maintaining that the porn trade is not an industrialised form of sexual abuse relies on the fantastical notion that porn studios have somehow managed to create a kind of economic and sexual nirvana: a place where a woman’s desire to have sex is miraculously in sync with the director’s schedule; where she happens to want and like all the sexual acts required by the director and which just happen to be the same acts which are most profitable for said director.”
I really appreciated this direct analysis. We’re far too easy on porn. We’re wanting to help those caught up in it in our churches, but we tend to do so in terms of what is good for them. Of course, a porn addiction is ungodly and no good for those caught up in it. But there is more. It is participation in this monetised abuse, what Banyard calls “filmed prostitution.”
Perhaps what interests me most about all of this is that Banyard lays the blame for this entire culture at the door of what she calls sex inequality. In part, she blames the church for this. Fair point, the church has been guilty of sexual misogyny in the past. But for me the deep irony is that it is the Bible, God’s word, which makes the best argument for sex equality. 1 Corinthians 7 anybody! It’s radical stuff.
We have something positive to say and we must not be coy about saying it. But even deeper than this, in the church today, we must be honest about porn.
Providence not just sovereignty
This is not the first time I’ve applied a simple truth to my own life, nor will it be the last. The truth is this: we believe in God’s sovereignty and his providence. I wonder if our renewed interest in all things reformed, especially as we ingest what he hear from across the pond, has made us super-sovereignty adherents (something that is of course true), but have neglected the doctrine of providence.
It is, of course, possible, to read too much into providence. Famously Oliver Cromwell used to see all kinds of portents in all kinds of places. And God’s providence as a sole means of determining God’s will for us seems a little haphazard and unwise. We could say, I guess, that at times some of the puritans had an over-realised understanding of God’s providence.
Nevertheless, we must not throw out the proverbial baby. God is indeed sovereign and he is provident – his sovereignty is worked out in the lives of his people for the good of his people. Therein lies our comfort. We pray ‘Our Father in heaven.’ He is both in heaven ruling and reigning and he is also our Father. What amazing truths: truths which I need to preach to myself over and over again.
Five lessons from our wives’ conference for guys
As a bloke, and a husband, I always find it fascinating and alarming in equal measure to listen to minister’s wives talk to me at our wives’ conferences. I think, for the most part, the wives are more honest than their husbands or, at least, more direct about the various joys and struggles of ministry. Here are five themes I picked up this year – they’re all pretty general as I don’t want to reveal any confidences. However, I did wonder as I heard some of these things whether husbands were aware of them or (in some cases) their own negligence. Make of them what you will.
1. “I get to hear hardly any Bible teaching”. This is a common refrain. Wives are often busy running the Sunday School (because no one else will) or with the younger kids. Her husband is always on duty and so her spiritual input tends to be picking up a few crumbs here and there. We get many women coming to our conferences who simply can’t get enough input because it’s their only annual fix. Guys, how did you let things get like this?
2. “My walk with God is completely dry/I don’t have a quiet time”. This is not quite the same point as number 1. A number of wives confided this year that their spiritual life is completely dry. Time is taken up with kids, husbands, ministries and so on and they have let things slip. My follow up question was generally, ‘Does your husband know?’ More often than not the answer was no. The blame here – in my mind – lies squarely with husbands, called to lead their families. It is no kind of leadership to squeeze the spiritual life from your spouse. Shame on you.
3. “My husband and I have no time together.” This is a common refrain, sometimes expressed more explicitly in terms of sexual intimacy (or lack of it). Not only is a lack of intimacy prohibited by Scripture (1 Cor 7), it is a sign of deeper malaise. Often the flip side of this is that our kids demand all our time, but the best gift to our kids is a strong marriage. Again, husbands need to bear some or all of the blame here.
4. “My husband spends all his spare time in ministry.” I want to be careful critiquing this complaint. Ministry is all consuming. Those of who are ministers need to feel something of the burden of the high calling we have as under-shepherds of Christ’s sheep. But we serve neither our people, nor our wives (nor Christ) by operating as though we were single men. Paul is right, being married and in ministry does mean we have ‘divided interests’ (1 Cor 7.34). That is not a complaint on Paul’s part, it is simply a statement of fact. But many married ministers carry on as though they were not.
5. “I am not discipled or taught by any elder women.” Perhaps this is for younger wives especially. But a shocking number tell of how they are not mentored at all. There is very little Titus 2 stuff going on. Perhaps, you say, this is not down to you. Maybe so. Maybe not – as a husband and a minister, you should be making sure your wife is pastored, just as you should be ensuring all women are pastored appropriately. Why is she missed off this list?
Perhaps I am too provocative? Perhaps a little too much hyperbole? Forgive me, but I want to make the point clear. In short, too many of us married ministers are scarcely loving our wives as Christ loved the church.
The Two Hills
Regular readers of The Proclaimer will know that this summer I am moving from one ‘hill’ to another: I’m leaving the Cornhill Training Course to join the faculty of Oak Hill Theological College. One’s named after a road it used to be on but now isn’t which is miles from the nearest cornfield and isn’t really a hill anyway, and the other sits atop what looks at best like a small rise in the ground. All very confusing.
It has been a privilege and a pleasure to teach at Cornhill, albeit for quite a short time. Each year the Lord sends a wonderfully stimulating and enthusiastic posse of new students to Cornhill. To see so many of them grow in love and gifts is a deep delight. A number of readers of this blog will be pastors who have sent students our way, and it is gratifying that good local churches continue to think that Cornhill is useful.
I’ve received a few comments on my move (not many, but a few) which have reflected a sense that one or other the ‘Hills’ is thought to be the real deal, where the real training happens, while the other is a bit lightweight / a bit unfocused / a bit blinkered / not turning out people with the right convictions solidly in place [delete as appropriate]. Now I have no doubt that both institutions have their weaknesses (both have employed me, for a start). But I find it impossible to think that I am moving from somewhere lesser to somewhere greater, or the other way round. I think instead that I am moving from training institution that has proved itself incredibly useful in the Lord’s hands and has the opportunity to continue doing so in the future, to another of which the same is true.
As we are all aware, there is a growing diversity of training routes for Christian ministry on offer, from colleges to courses, from residential and full time to local and part-/spare-time. There is of course always the danger of dilution as things diversify and as training is developed by a variety of people, each with their own strengths and blind spots. We’re all slightly uncomfortable when we see others doing things that we (whether rightly or foolishly) think we could do better. But it’s surely better to run those risks and attempt to address the issues as we go, in order to get as many pastors, elders, leaders and others trained as possible.
Seen in the right perspective, all colleges and courses are not merely businesses trying to strengthen their customer base (although of course they need stay solvent and be professionally and competently managed). They are ultimately servants of the real work of the Lord going on in local churches. And it seems for now to be the case that a varied set of training possibilities, varied both in terms of structure and small emphases of content and focus, serves churches well, as we seek to grow the gospel in as many places as we can.
Fighting Sin and Growing in Godliness, according to Galatians
There’s a very particular take in Galatians on fighting sin and growing in godliness which is worth noting, firstly in our own lives and secondly in our preaching and pastoring. It emerges towards the end of the letter. Paul sets out the contrasting ‘acts of the flesh’ (5.19-21a) and ‘fruit of the Spirit’ (5.22-23a). But he does not (we must note!) directly command or exhort the Galatians to fight against sin or to work directly at growth in godly characteristics. He does both of those things elsewhere – respectively in, for example, Col 3.5-10 and 2 Pet 1.5-8 – but not here in Galatians. Mortification of sin is biblical teaching, but not Galatian, I think.
What is Paul doing in Galatians with regard to godliness, then? ‘So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh’ (5.16). Here is a command – live by the Spirit – and a statement of a consequence that will follow if we obey that command – it will then turn out that we are in fact not gratifying the desires of the flesh.
So the crucial godliness question in Galatians is, what does it means to ‘live by the Spirit’?
Two answers stand out:
i) In the immediate context, Paul has commanded them to ‘serve one another humbly in love’, because this fulfils the entire law (5.13b-14). The subsequent command to ‘live by the Spirit’ (v.16) looks rather like a restatement of this. Thus to live by the Spirit is to live a life of humble, loving service towards others.
ii) In the wider Galatian context, living by the Spirit means not relying on law-keeping for security in right-standing with God: ‘Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?’ (3.3).
Put this together, and it looks like this:
We must keep striving to find our entire security in our right-standing with the Lord not in any law-like list of achievements, but only in the works that the Spirit brings about in us. We must strive, too, to make humble, loving service of others the distinguishing feature of our attitudes and actions. (And note that these two have a natural link: if I get my sense of secure right-standing with the Lord through any list of laws I have kept, I will inevitably compare myself favourably with others in order to make my list of well-kept laws seem impressive enough – and that is the very antithesis of a loving, humble, servant heart.)
As we are focused on these two strivings – for the right foundation of our justification, for the right fundamental attitude to others – we will discover (back now to 5.16) that we are not gratifying (fuelling, feeding, stroking, pleasing) the desires of the flesh.
There is more than one way prescribed in Scripture for fighting particular sins, and we need all of them. One is to assault them directly. Another, as set out in Galatians, is to focus Christ and the Spirit, not law, as the basis for our secure standing with God, and to co-operate with the Spirit’s work in developing in us a life of humble, loving service.
If you read the fruit of the Spirit as a preacher, I wonder if one of the greatest challenges is whether we are patient. Evidence of the fruit, of course, is evidence that we are keeping in step with the Spirit, filled with him. So it’s sometimes a useful exercise to read the Galatians verse and ask yourself some pretty searching questions.
On this basis, I wonder how many of us preachers would stumble over patience (or long-suffering, or forbearance, depending on your translation). I had a happy lunch last week with Dick Lucas and we reflected and riffed on this for a while (if you can imagine him riffing). We live in an instant gratification world, as we all know. We complain when we see this quality creeping into church – we see a lack of commitment, we see people flitting from church to church at the slightest provocation.
But do we pause and ask whether we suffer from the same lack of patience in ministry? I long for people to be changed by the word. I long for conversions. I long for breakthroughs. And I get impatient when there are none. There is a kind of godly ambition which is holy and fuels prayer. But there is also a kind of ministry impatience which gets too easily frustrated at people’s lack of progress.
There’s a tension here, is there not? I want to be on my knees praying that John Smith will believe, pleading that Joan Smith will be sanctified. But I also need to channel my impatience into godly prayer rather than letting it overflow into ministry frustration.
Patience, Mr Preacher, patience.
Never lose the wonder
I cycle home over Tower Bridge most days, alongside the Tower of London. It’s a pretty magical views. Every now and again, particularly in the summer, the bridge lifts. It’s never unplanned – you can go on the Tower Bridge website and see when the liftings are which, in my better moments, I remember to do before I set off for home.
But this week, on a night when I needed to get home for babysitting duties, I was not quite in time and had to wait (it takes about 15 mins to go up and down). I was impressed by the adulation of the tourists – lots of oohing and aahing. Lots of cameras. Lots of selfies. Here was one of London’s most iconic shots – Tower Bridge OPEN! And yet, it just felt like an inconvenience to me. I’ve seen it so many times, it was just annoying – something to break my journey and put me under pressure.
That’s a strange reaction – truth be told – to something so romantic and eye-catching. I have (or had, at least) lost the wonder for a moment. And preachers can become similarly desensitised. We can lose the magic (if I’m permitted to use that phrase) of the wonder of God, the depths of his love, the delights of his salvation, the incredibleness of his indwelling. In ministry terms, preaching can become a chore, conversions a bit hum drum and sanctification taken for granted. Whereas, in fact, we ought to be in the front row with our camera phones taking photos.
Lord, never let me lose the wonder.
Hallowed be your translation
We’re preaching through the Sermon on the Mount at the moment at church and it struck me as we reached chapter 6 how many modern translations bottle the Lord’s prayer. There is one phrase which is an archaism. “Hallowed be your name” trips off the tongue, of course, because the prayer is so well known. But the language obscures the meaning and if most translators were true to their philosophy they would translate it differently.
The verb is hagiazo which appears frequently in the New Testament. But even in the most obvious place it is never elsewhere translated in this way (that’s probably 2 Tim 2:21), even in the King James Version. It is the language of setting apart as holy or showing to be holy. And that is how the KJV uses it in some places in the Old Testament (though never in the New). For example, “Then I will cut off Israel out of the land which I have given them; and this house, which I have hallowed for my name, will I cast out of my sight” (1 Kings 9:7). There it is translating the Hebrew root qds, or hagiazo in the LXX.
So, compare how translations deal with this word:
- KJV 1 Kings 9.7: “hallowed”
- KJV Matthew 6.9: “hallowed”
- ESV 1 Kings 9.7: “consecrated”
- ESV Matthew 6.9: “hallowed”
- NIV 1 Kings 9.7: “consecrated”
- NIV Matthew 6.9: “hallowed”
- HCSB 1 Kings 9.7: “sanctified”
- HCSB Matthew 6.9: “honoured as holy”
In fairness to the ESV, it does explain the word in a footnote. And, arguably, “consecrated” is equally jargon. You might think this does not matter, but I did a quick unscientific survey the other day of various people, including some pastors, and most had no idea what the phrase in the Lord’s prayer really meant. Given the extraordinary nature of what Jesus calls us to pray for, that’s a remarkable thing, isn’t it?
Can you, will you pray today, “Lord, may your name be honoured as holy.” In me. In my church.