Was Timothy Causing a Preacher-centric Arrangement?
I’ve recently caught wind of another disturbing attitude
toward having services or assemblies that have a regular preacher preaching the
word to an assembly of listeners. It is again the same old line about needing
to get away from “traditionalism”. It makes me wonder how scriptural they
really think they are by getting away from even the “traditional” arrangements
of the early churches. For example, what
would be the role for Timothy in the “new traditional” movement?
A huge part of Timothy’s work was toward the brethren there
at Ephesus. He was told to "instruct the brethren in these things"(1
Tim.4:6), and if he did he would be a good "minister of Jesus
Christ". The instructions were about warnings and corrections that needed
to be addressed to the assembly of brethren in Ephesus and by extension everywhere
else. Was this arrangement a bad
arrangement compared to the house-churches that push for a casual and mutual
edification arrangement? A preacher is a
good minister or servant if he warns the brethren of deceiving spirits and
doctrines of demons (1 Tim.4:1-3). Good churches make arrangements to hear from
good men and listen to their spiritual insights and warnings. Timothy had the approval of the eldership (1
Tim.4:14), which means that the elders fed the flock BY MEANS of utilizing
Timothy and his studies. He was meditating, studying, and delivering messages
that instructed the brethren and potentially saving "those who hear
you"(1 Tim.4:16). Good leaders see
the value of this kind of arrangement over the kind of diet a group will get
and not get when it is all spontaneous and without depth of study and
reflection.
While Timothy was instructing the brethren, there were also
"elders who rule well" and even elders "who labor in the word
and doctrine"(1 Tim.5:17). Yet, Timothy could rebuke an elder who might be
sinning and do so "in the presence of all"(1 Tim.5:20). Timothy could do all these things and still
not be a "pastor" or shepherd, and without causing a “preacher-centric”
arrangement instead of a Christ-centered arrangement. Timothy was still a young
man (1 Tim.4:12), and a shepherd or elder had to be an older man. An
"evangelist” does not deal exclusively, nor necessarily primarily, with
teaching the lost, but he also deals heavily with keeping the saved and
"correcting" those who have itching ears to hear something other than
the truth of the gospel (2 Tim.4:1-4). You might notice that Paul expected the
restless spirit of those who were not satisfied with that arrangement and with
that kind of preaching, and who wanted all-positive preaching, things that made
them feel better about themselves. That same spirit is at work today. I’ve
heard gospel preachers say that they want a positive, uplifting sermon each
time they preach. Paul did not encourage
Timothy to engage that kind of mentality (2 Tim.4:1-4). There is enough room
for positive lessons and for rebuking lessons that do not make us feel good,
but direct us to making changes that need to be made, or that equip us for dealing
with the doctrines of men that we will encounter from friends and family. A steady diet of all-positive preaching is
actually a corrupting practice that tickles the ears rather than converts the
soul. If a preacher keeps dishing out
all-positive things, he needs to be rebuked, and if he does not change, show
him the door. Can you imagine the
all-positive meeting at Corinth when they read Paul’s first letter to them? There are plenty of positive things to preach
and enjoy, but the scriptures do not give us an all-positive diet, and neither
should preachers or churches demand that
any assembly is merely going to provide the positive or just the negative.
But, not leaving our topic, we see that Timothy worked among
pastors (elders), but was not himself a pastor. And, we also make note that the
pastors did not do all the feeding of the flock directly because we see Timothy
doing a major portion of it. Had he left all the feeding of the flock to the
elders there some might have a point about evangelists only working with the
lost. But, they do not have a valid point because Timothy fed the brethren
where elders were present. Therefore, preachers are not "pastors"
unless they are older men who have been qualified and appointed to be pastors
or shepherds (elders), and they do not cause a “preacher-centric” arrangement
that is unhealthy or unscriptural.
So, the argument that a regular preacher becomes a “pastor”
never was really true, and it also shows that having a regular preacher does
not make a congregation “preacher-centric”. The preacher is not trying to
preach himself, but Christ Jesus. The only
way a congregation can become “preacher-centric” is for the congregation to
think more of the preacher than they do of Christ. A good preacher does not let that spirit go
unrebuked. It was part of the carnal
spirit we saw at Corinth.(1 Cor.1-3). But,
notice that Paul, Apollos, or Cephas were men who preached Jesus. Was it wrong for these men to regularly
address the church? Not at all! In fact,
God ordained that there should be arrangements where men take a preaching role
and the church supports them (1 Cor.9:13f).
They sow spiritual things and the members give them material things to
keep them going in this good work. It is realizing the need for a good diet of
studied material and giving the men room to get that reading, meditating, and
studying done so that he prospers and can then help edify “those that hear”,
that makes for a healthy diet. Paul knew this was a good arrangement both for
Timothy, the elders at Ephesus, and the whole flock at Ephesus.
Judging from some comments I hear from advocates of the
house-church arrangement like LaGard Smith, I do not see a good diet of
scripture knowledge and it seems to promote a spirit of “just make me feel good”,
which means that a good diet of solid Bible teaching and doctrine will go
lacking in order to keep the “atmosphere” they are seeking. Atmosphere becomes more important than sound
teaching.
That spirit of trying all things “non-traditional” needs to
slow down and test and debate what “traditional” things are not good and right,
rather than taking such a dangerous and reckless rejection of anything “traditional”. It may very well be the case that some things
are traditional because they are scriptural and have been studied out as the
most expedient things in service to God and under respect for the full headship
and authority of Jesus Christ. Please think soberly and reverently about these
things. Terry W. Benton
