New Thoughts (02/10/15-02/17/15)
The Need for Elders (02/12/15)
Looking at the flow of Peter’s letter, it could strike one as odd to see this sudden shift to addressing the leadership. You could be pardoned, were this your only basis for understanding the church, for wondering why one needed elders at all. If we are all priests and Christ is our only High Priest, what need have we for middle management? Then, given the extent to which the suffering of the faithful has occupied Peter’s attention, why are we suddenly dropping that thread of the conversation to discuss how the church should be governed? But, I tell you that suffering is exactly why attention turns to the elders. It is a large part of why God sees fit to set His people under the care of elders. And, it is care that you are under, not domination.
Peter’s thinking, though he does not state it outright, is something like this: Christ suffered on your behalf (1Pe 2:19-25, 1Pe 3:18-22). Many of you are suffering in one way or another on His behalf (1Pe 2:11-4:19). Because you are now suffering, you have particular need for the ministration of the elders. Think of the imagery that is chosen for this office; that of the shepherd and the sheep. That imagery is particularly dominant in this passage with its culminating reminder of the Good Shepherd. Sheep, were they in a land devoid of predators, deep waters, precipices, and other such dangers, would have no need for a shepherd. I would suppose that at some stage in their development sheep indeed survived without human intervention. That said, their lot and their chances of survival certainly increase with the addition of a shepherd, even a poor and inattentive shepherd.
It is precisely because of the myriad dangers to your spiritual health that you need a shepherd. And I can tell you this with utmost certainty, your shepherd needs a shepherd as well! If you feel the pressures of life amidst a sinful people, if you feel the pains of doing your utmost to live as you ought and finding yourself belittled and abused for your efforts, your shepherd feels it the more. I’m not sure this aspect of the matter can ever be truly appreciated until you’ve spent some time in that role. In many respects you are required to know too much for your own peace of mind. You are, of necessity, aware of all the garbage being faced by those you shepherd. You are aware of their griefs and sorrows, and not only aware of them. They become your own griefs and sorrows.
We might take somewhat from the example of the President. We watch repeatedly how these men enter office with youthful mien but emerge from office greyed and tired. The weight of responsibility that comes with that office must be felt by the one who fills it, whether he fills it well or poorly. It’s inescapable. If it is not felt rightly, due to regard for the governed as to their security and their welfare, it is felt for the simple fact of living under such constant scrutiny. I dare say the one who fills the office poorly cannot help but feel the burden of knowing himself judged a failure and yet unable to set the office aside.
The comparison to the office of elder in the church can only be partial, but it is there. The office wears on you because you are aware of so much. Sitting in the pews, you can be happy enough to assume the best about everybody else. Oh, you’ll have your occasional personality clashes, sure. But, you avoid those folks as best you can, and you know (or convince yourself you know) that however different they may be from you, they are like you in their love for God. You can come to assume that everybody else here has really got it together spiritually. Yes, you can easily come to the opposite conclusion and decide everybody is superficial and only you have it together, but that’s almost assuredly going to prove to be a pride issue that needs dealing with rather than an accurate assessment.
But, the elder is not granted such blissful ignorance. Like it or not, he’s going to be made aware of the worst aspects of the sheep. He’s going to learn of their self-destructive ways. He’s going to hear about how this sheep has been doing that sheep wrong or has been done wrong by another. He’s going to hear about the trials they’re going through outside the church. Honestly, if all the elder finds cause to be aware of is the degree to which his charges are suffering for the simple fact of trying to live righteously, he would likely break forth in shouts of praise! And, there is a fair amount of that which happens (the suffering, if not the shouting). I get the sense that the nature of these sufferings has become somewhat more subtle in our situation, at least for now. We hear about those who are suffering even unto death for their faith, but it’s in faraway lands and we simply opt not to go there. At worst, it may impact some missionary we support, and have met once or twice. But, it doesn’t have direct impact on us, not in that form. We do, though, have our own trials that do indeed come about either in spite of doing our best to live as we ought, or directly because we are living as we ought.
Where do we turn? Peter’s showing us. This is what your elder is here for, to help you in these times of need. That is not to say that he’s going to somehow make it all right on your behalf. We are not – I repeat, not – guaranteed a life of health, wealth and happiness this side of heaven. You may be given periods of any or all of those. You may not. Praise God either way! Join Paul in the acclamation! Whether in plenty or in lack, I am content, for I know Whom I have believed in. I know how it turns out, what lies at the end of my journey. Given that, such trials as may beset me along the way are as nothing. Do they hurt? Oh, yes. I’m not insensate. Do they matter? Not so much. The worst they can do is speed me on my way home.
No, your elder is not going to make it all better when you call on him in your time of need. That is not his purpose nor is it within his authority. He can and will do what is within his power to do. (I’ll just note the ongoing discussions I am having with a fellow believer as regards the extent of that power and authority.) But, what he can and should do is assuredly going to include the exact sorts of things we find Peter doing in this letter. He can and should point you back to Christ. He can and should encourage you not to give in to the temptation to respond in kind. He can and should take you back to the certain hope of the Gospel in order that you may stand firm in the face of the storm. He can and should remind you that God is with you in the midst and He will surely see you through.
I will add that he can and should, as the burdens are felt upon his shoulders, remember that he is not alone as an elder. God has wisely seen that a plurality of elders is assigned to the church, not one alone. We who shepherd will often find cause to seek out a shepherd’s care ourselves. There’s a reason we are called under-shepherds of Christ the Good Shepherd. And sometimes, because we shepherds remain sheep, we need to be reminded of this ourselves. We need each other to encourage each other. We are not left to undertake the task alone because we serve a great and good God who knows us well.
The Authority (02/13/15)
The elder cannot be an elder except he is authorized to fill that office. He is, as Peter indicates, an under-shepherd. As such, his authority is wholly and solely that which he has been given. It extends only so far as the Shepherd deigns to grant it. Should the elder act contrary to the Shepherd’s command, his authority is at an end. Should he seek to exercise his office amongst a different flock than was assigned to him, he has exceeded his authority and cannot expect to be heeded.
In this much it can be said that the authority of the Apostles is the same. They, too, held authority only so far as they accurately upheld the purposes of Christ, nor did their authority extend beyond those given to their care. And yet, their authority was unique. It was a greater authority than that of the elder. At the most basic, we could view them as the shepherds of the shepherds, the elders of the elders. Note from Peter’s example, though, that they do not emphasize their primacy, but rather their equality. Peter, in particular, says, I am your fellow elder. We are alike. We share the same duties and the same concerns. I know what you’re facing over there. I’m facing it here.
Here is another distinction. The elders do not have authority to set the course of the Church. They are not authorized to pronounce new doctrine. The mission of the elder is to maintain, to stay the course, to see to it that the Gospel that was entrusted to them is the Gospel that is presented by them. The Apostles, Paul particularly, were authorized to establish doctrine and did so under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This is not just authority. It is responsibility, and it is responsibility I assure you they felt the weight of fully. The Apostles had what might be construed as revelatory authority. They were granted revealed knowledge, access to Truths previously obscured, and were granted to inform the flock of Christ of these new things. That authority has passed. Too many either refuse to accept this or simply fail to understand the significance of this.
This does not mean that God has ceased speaking to His people. The more conservative among us would say (and often do), if you want to hear God speak, read His Word, and if you want to hear Him speak audibly, read it aloud. That’s a little bit on the snarky side, but it makes the point. God has revealed Himself. He has done so in full. The Son has shown Him to us. He has made Himself as known to the degree He intends to do so. Might He still whisper an occasional personal word to one or another of His children? Sure. Why not? But, this does not render that word to be of a revelatory nature. It could easily be argued that every time we arrive at a clearer understanding of one passage or another, being as it is the Holy Spirit who enables us to understand, we are hearing God speak. I have no particular issue with accepting that people to this day receive flashes of insight or even dreams and visions. I do, however, have a very great issue with lifting those internal whisperings to the same level as Scripture, or even a higher level.
What the Charismatics like to speak of as the rhema word may well be a word for today. But, it either accords with the revelation of Scripture and serves to point to the present-moment application, or it is a false spirit. Prophets may well abide to this day, but if they claim to be revealing new doctrines based on their direct channel to heaven, then they are as false as any of the prophets Jeremiah dealt with in his day. Are there spiritual gifts? Sure there are. Are there spiritual counterfeits? It is just as certain. The gifts are not, cannot be the proof of the Truth. It is quite the opposite. The Truth is proof of the gifts. If they accord they are genuine. If they conflict they are deceiving spirits sent to frustrate the true work of the Gospel, and to distract the workers from their labors.
To the degree that we have those who today would lay claim to the apostolic office, we can rest assured those claimants are at best deluded. At worst they are knowing servants of the sower of tares. The apostolic office was for a specific time and the requirements set upon those who held the office make that plain. There is no man alive today who can possibly claim to have been eye-witness to the events of Jesus’ earthly life. There is no man alive today who stood by as He was baptized or who watched in horror as He hung upon the cross. That age is closed, and those who insist that it shall return do us a great disservice. I am convinced that this is more an act of pride than of knowing evil. But, in a movement that moved from having prophets to everybody moving in the prophetic, need was found to somehow distinguish oneself from the crowd. So, we see the claims to an apostolic gift or an apostolic office. But, pride is hardly a safe foundation for doctrine.
As concerns the office of elder more directly, it is interesting to note, from the JFB, how the arrangement of church leadership is modeled upon that of the synagogue. This can hardly be a surprise, I should think. In the synagogue, the chief ruler is one of the council of presbyters. I am relatively sure that the term presbyter itself is unlikely to be in use in that setting. But the nature of the office is the same, as is the appointment of one to serve as leader amongst them. In our church, for example, there is the board of elders, but there is also the chairman of said board. He is, as the pastor of our last church liked to set himself, first among equals. He is not somehow greater than the rest of us. He does, however, have a certain authority in excess of ours, to be exercised as servant to all, just as our own office is to be exercised as servant to all.
What I find particularly interesting in this arrangement, though, is the way in which this runs counter to those who like to insist that the church, at its foundation, was not a gathering in a building. See? It was just home groups. They met in so and so’s house, and spent far more of their time and energy out seeking converts than in gathering together. Really? Oh, yes! Look. Lydia was down there at the river, not in a church, or synagogue or even a house (Ac 16:13). But, note well the introductory thought here. Paul and his group had gone outside the gate and down by the river, ‘where we were supposing that there would be a place of prayer’. In Israel at an earlier time, I could imagine him going up to the high places on the same supposition. That hardly makes the location a place one expects to find the people of God. Quite the opposite, really. So, fine. We can point to this and say that Paul was out looking for converts, and I should agree that this is precisely what he was doing.
But, the question remains: What was he doing with these converts once they were converted? The very clear answer is that he was organizing them in churches, ekklesia, congregations. It is argued by the primitivists that this is true, but they were gathering in homes, not buildings intended specifically for that purpose. To be sure, you are right. They had no choice. Before long, even meeting in homes would become too dangerous and they would move literally underground. Is this done as an example for the modern church to follow? In like circumstances, I might say that it was. But, we are not in like circumstances, and the nature in which the Apostles saw fit to establish the office of elder demonstrates the nature of what they were establishing. It was modeled upon the synagogue, which makes perfect sense. Christianity was not some new religion with no prior history. It was a correction, a reformation if you will, of what had been for centuries on end. Of course it would be modeled on the type already established. That it did not yet meet in buildings specific to the purpose was not because this was against the design, but because the opportunity to establish such places had not yet been realized.
The sheer volume of material devoted to the description of the Temple(s) in the Old Testament should make it pretty clear that God has designs on such a structure. Yes, we are now made a living temple, but we are made so together. There is a gathering, a mutual support. There is a need for one another that comes by God’s design. This touches on a discussion I am having in another setting. God chooses to distribute gifts and talents amongst His people such that first, no man may think himself complete in his gifts and above others; second, every one of God’s people will know his need for his brothers; third, in order that every one of God’s people may have something he can contribute to the need of his brothers. It is a marvelous and beautiful arrangement, designed for strength and humility. It is orderly as God is orderly. It is, or at least should be, harmonious as God is harmonious. It is, by His design, overseen by shepherds. I shall not say governed, although I nearly did. But, I remain mindful of that which one or the other of these commentaries pointed out: God does not relinquish His governance of His church. He but appoints overseers. The moment we slip into thinking ourselves governors we overstep.
The Qualification (02/13/15-02/14/15)
Having established to my satisfaction that the authority is there, the next question that must be contemplated is what are the qualifications for this office of elder? As we consider what Scripture has to say on that subject, both here and elsewhere, it is clear that there are very specific matters of character that must be present or, in the negative, absent. A proclivity for drunkenness, combativeness or promiscuity would clearly disqualify the candidate. A generally juvenile approach to life would likewise disqualify. But, there is also the positive quality, chief of which I might hold to be that of readiness to teach. To be ready to teach, one must be clear as to doctrine. This is the necessary knowledge for the safeguarding of the Gospel and of the flock, is it not? But, knowledge alone will not suffice. That knowledge must reflect in practice. Orthodoxy and then orthopraxy, as the church is fond of saying. It must be both. That is evident in Peter’s exhortation in this passage. Lead by example. But, let me save that thought for its rightful place.
Here, we consider qualifications. What qualifies a man to serve as elder? Yes, there are matters of character, knowledge and wisdom to be established. In our denomination, elders are both nominated and elected by vote of the membership. This is built upon an understanding of the church as a priesthood of all believers. The members are, as best as may be discerned, accounted believers and therefore presumed to be guided by the Holy Spirit in their prayerful determinations. That may hold imperfectly true in practice, but then, I think God is quite able to surmount our myriad imperfections. If He is not, then we are doomed anyway and none of this particularly matters.
So, then, the congregation elects and here we are. I suspect that any one of us, particularly upon first being approached to accept nomination, are rather bemused that anybody would suppose us fit to lead a parade, let alone a church. I know that all whom I have served with feel their absolute insufficiency to the task once elected. It is, I think, the most utterly humbling thing to find oneself here. God! What are You thinking? You know, we laugh at Moses and his response to God’s selection of him to go deal with Pharaoh, but I think his response is that which any man with anything approaching a true sense of self would feel. Me? No way, Lord. John over there would be far more suitable to the office, don’t You think? But, whom God calls God equips. He has already qualified. It may well take us a long while to recognize that in full. But, others did. That’s why they nominated you. That’s why they elected you to serve as their overseer. God is in control.
Let me tie this back to the matter of authority very briefly. Matthew Henry draws the picture for us. If we are shepherds, he indicates, it is so as deriving any authority we have from Him. This much we have established. Here’s the next, cautionary point: We exercise that authority as being absolutely accountable to Him in the end. I have known those who thought this gave an excuse for blind obedience of those being shepherded. For the sheep this translated as, if I obey my leader and my leader is misleading me, I’m still right with God and my leader will be called to account. For the shepherd, this could very quickly slip into such arrogance of leadership as permits of no questioning as to direction. How dare you question me? But, the fact is that both shepherd and sheep are going to render account to Him in the end. The shepherd, having been entrusted with more, shall have more to answer for, but the sheep is not released from moral responsibility by any stretch.
If I consider this combined task of shepherding and oversight, I must consider that a solid grounding in the doctrine is a necessity. How can I feed them good food if I cannot discern good food from bad? How can I assess their development if I have no trustworthy gauge with which to measure? This indicates the need for elders qualified not only as concerns their character but also as concerns their understanding.
I suggested, in my earlier thoughts, the idea that candidates for the office of elder should present something along the lines of an ordination paper. I know when I accepted nomination one of the first steps thereafter was to complete a test. That test was designed to give some assessment of my theological understanding. It is one way of addressing this concern, and certainly a much less time consuming one than writing a paper. But, there is something about the effort of setting one’s thoughts in order on some of the major matters of doctrine that would benefit the one who did so.
Mind you, I suspect that we should find even less willing candidates were this requirement set upon them. Perhaps there is a different form which our test could take that would balance this out somewhat. The current test is mostly in the form of multiple choice, and I know for my own part a few of my answers were more process of elimination (if not outright guesswork) than reflections of direct knowledge of the answer. What if it were more along the lines of an essay test? Let there be questions along the lines of those headings the ordination candidate addresses. Perhaps this does not go to the point of listing out Scriptural references to back one’s views, but at least lets those views be discovered. I’m not sure that’s the path to go down, but there is need to have some means of assessing the theology of those we would grant authority to oversee.
There is another danger that this brings to mind, that of becoming overly pragmatic in our search for elders. Believe me, after a year of serving with just the five of us, there is a definite urge to see more serving. The flock is growing, and with it the burdens. But, if that desire to see more men serving as elders leads us to reduce our standards, we are definitely on the wrong course. I have seen myself slip into that mode when it comes to getting folks to teach. We need teachers. The deadline approaches. If I can’t find another to teach, it will fall on me. The urge to fill the slot with the next warm body that shows signs of willingness is strong. But, it must be resisted. There must be some bar to clear, some degree of qualification both in knowledge and approach. For the elder, this just holds to that much greater a degree.
Now, the elder who is set in office has authority and that authority has certain, specific tools by which to serve the office. Those tools, as Barnes lists them, are reason, persuasion and example. They are to be used under a ‘dominion of love and truth’. Notice: These are not tools of coercion or dominance. They are tools that are designed to produce faith. Faith is being persuaded by the evidence. Our example is in this regard the evidence. It is not the evidence of flashy gifts. It is the evidence of living out the life God desires us to live out, a life lived by and for the Gospel. This example gives us a living parable, as it were, of that which we would teach by reason. It is not the proof of the Truth, but it does demonstrate the power of the Truth. The combination of orthodoxy and orthopraxy becomes a very persuasive argument for faith, particularly where it is kept free of arguing. Do you hear Peter’s constant exhortation in that? Don’t respond in kind. Be ready to answer anybody who comes with questions. Live the Gospel regardless of what sort of response you get. Sow your seed of grace in any and every soil and concern yourself not with the quality of it. The growth is God’s business. Yours is to plant and to water as He directs. You, sir elder, are set here to water this particular plot.
Having noted that the authority of office has its tools, we might be inclined to wonder which comes first, the office or the equipping? There is a very popular sentiment around church circles that what God calls us to, He equips us to do. That is true in some sense. The question is, in what sense? Does He call us to things we are ill equipped to achieve and then come along once we’ve banged our head against it for a while and then handed us the lacking means? Or, does He wisely call us to that for which He has already equipped? Now, it may very well be that we do not recognize the equipping He has done. We do have a tendency towards holding very incorrect assessments of our abilities, whether the error tends toward overvaluing or undervaluing. I would incline to say that where there is fitness to serve, the likelihood of undervaluing is much greater. Where the opposite holds, I should have to say nothing corrects more quickly than serving in this office. You will not long persist in any error of thinking you’ve arrived.
Hear the words of Clemens Alexandrinus. “He is a true minister of the counsel of God who doeth and teacheth the things of the Lord; not accounted righteous because he is a presbyter, but, because righteous, chosen into the presbytery.” Notice: There is that dual qualification of orthodoxy and orthopraxy. There is also the note sounded that qualification precedes office. He is chosen because he has these qualities, not endowed with these qualities because he has been chosen.
This understanding must inform our assessment of those we would have lead us. This understanding must inform our assessment of how we have led. I know from experience that there is always a bit of a nagging doubt as to my fitness for this task. This calls for a degree of faith in God’s guidance of His own people. But, it also demands real introspection and a very real consultation with God as to whether I should continue to pronounce myself willing to serve. I want so very much to simply say God must know what He is doing and He wouldn’t allow His children to put somebody harmful into such an office. But, then, both Scripture and history tell me otherwise. All those dark pronouncements upon the shepherds of Israel in the Prophets tell me that God will indeed allow His children to do just that. Was it just that these particular sheep were already written off as reprobate? No, I don’t see that. Was it for the good of His flock? It would have to be, for He is good. Was it good for those particular under-shepherds or the flock they harmed? Certainly not in any immediate sense. Perhaps they recovered. Perhaps the sheep at least found their justification in the next life. God is Just and Good. That much I can trust. That does not necessarily safeguard the present to so great a degree, though. It does not guarantee that I, or any other elder, cannot err.
The period in which most of these commentaries were written more or less necessitates that the authors often turn their attention to the Roman Catholic church. In our own time, we find many voices urging a softening of the Protestant stance against them, but then, it is often pointed out that the fundamental, essential differences of doctrine have not changed. There is still a pope set forth as inerrant, and in full and final authority over every other office of the Church. He is set forth as having received from Peter this primacy. But, as we notice, Peter suggests no such primacy for himself. Other authors have pointed out that he could hardly pass on what was never his in the first place. He was never granted governance of the Church. That governance remains with Christ alone. What he was given was oversight and that is what he and the other Apostles passed to the elders they appointed in every church.
See again that Peter addresses these officers as peers, not as passing down orders. Again I would note that the Apostles most assuredly held a higher authority, but they are gone and their special authority has gone with them. They were empowered by God to record these certain inerrant texts which constitute our New Testament. I dare say they were just as inerrant in their personal interactions with the church. This is not to say that they were perfect people. It is clear that they were not. Peter denied Christ. Paul persecuted Christ. And yet, they are set as foundations stones in the building of Christ’s church. It is Christ who lived in them, and it is Christ who ensured that their teaching, together with that of the other Apostles, contained no least grain of falsehood or contradiction. They were, after all, establishing the church of God who is Truth. It was necessary that there be no lie contained in that establishment. But now it is established, long established. Ours is not to relay the foundation, as if that were a possibility. Ours is to preserve that which was entrusted to us. Ours is to oversee. Yes, we continue to seek the expansion of His kingdom. Yes, we seek out those who have not yet come to know their Savior. Of course! But, in this office, the focus is particularly upon those who have. In this office, the concern is on preservation, of ensuring that those sheep are kept safe, that they are fed well on the Truth, and that they are growing in faith and growing in likeness to their Master.
We know from Jesus that His sheep will not follow another because they do not recognize that other’s voice. We know, too, that sheep are incredibly stupid and prone to deception. We know, too, that those sheep who are just entering the fold for the first time have not had any great practice in hearing His voice. They will need care in discerning His voice from the many others that may seek to confuse. Some of these sheep, though they have been in the fold a long time, are still easily confused by voices that sound almost right. The Destroyer is a slippery character and his deceptions are not generally so blatant as to be easily discerned. They need a shepherd. If they did not, then the Good Shepherd would not have bothered with appointing them. Those shepherds He has appointed must therefore be the first to hear, the most careful in listening for the voice of Him they serve. They must be watchful over those with hearing less acute. They must be far more alert to the dangers in order that the sheep may abide in innocence.
Clarke brings up a point for consideration for those of us who account ourselves Protestants. Sure, we can look at the papacy and see how it fails of these standards. The question must be asked, though, as to whether we do any better. Are we really heeding the instruction? Are we setting up unauthorized authority structures? Are we taking the structure Christ set forth seriously? It’s not so easy a question, is it? It makes one wish to look around at other denominations and point out where their governance might fall short. But that is of limited value. What of our own denomination? What of our own church within that denomination?
Here we have a plurality of elders set over the church with the pastor, at least officially, one among that number. He is not the chief elder, he is an elder. In practice, it is perhaps unavoidable that his voice carries a greater weight, but it cannot be allowed to become an unquestioned voice. I observe that he is often careful to keep us mindful of this; to set out his position in such fashion as to make clear to us that if our combined opinion runs counter to this, he will accede to it. This is well. We serve together, not in some hierarchical power structure. Even the chairman of the board of elders serves as an equal, not in some sense as first among equals. Yes, as concerns the running of the meeting, he has a certain say in when we move on, but it still requires consensus. Yes, he has certain greater responsibilities, but he does not hold power to trump the decisions of the board, nor does any other elder. There is, in that regard, no first among equals. There are only equals, each with their unique talents, gifts and abilities to contribute to the oversight of this body.
I know we are challenged together in many regards to satisfy the demands of office. It is a daunting task and in a very real sense beyond the capacity of man to fulfill. It is a high calling. Are we mindful that we serve as servants of Christ and not as lords over His church? Oh, I think so. Are we mindful that our fealty is to Him and not to tradition? I think so. I will admit and even accept that in very large degree what we preserve as sound doctrine is that which the church has established as its understanding and practice. There are particulars of that body of doctrine and practice with which one or another of us might differ and I could imagine a time where the combined wisdom of the board might see fit to advise a shift in our course. I cannot imagine that would be undertaken lightly, for I think we all feel the call to preserve.
If we were to conclude that a particular point of doctrine was quite simply in error, then yes, I would hope we would see it corrected whatever the reaction to correction might be. That goes back to Peter’s overall message. But, if it’s a matter of preference? No. It’s not worth the potential damage to those we are supposed to care for. I’ll take the matter of the charismata, simply because it is an ever present point of disagreement. I would maintain that these are things still available to the church. I would also maintain that the matter of their being availed is entirely secondary. The church is not harmed by their rightful use nor by the absence of their use. Where it is harmed is by their improper use, and that, sad to say, seems to be the consistent result. They are, in my experience, raised to so high a level of esteem as to supplant Christ and His word. I don’t think that is ever the intent, but it is the apparent result. If we are all so terribly impressed with words of prophecy coming forth, are we that fully acquainted with Scripture to have exhausted what was already revealed? Are we somehow dissatisfied with the Providence of God that we must also have this experience of the supernatural? I think it very necessary at some point to ask, what is your faith in? Is it in Christ or is it in signs?
That has diverged from my point. I return. As concerns a particular congregation, this is a matter of preference. It is as much a matter of preference as is the style of worship or the color of the carpet. Lest you take offense, let me be clear that I do not consider these examples to be of equal importance. I only set them forth as being likewise matters of preference. The validity of the church, and its provenance as being governed by Christ and empowered by the Spirit as they worship the Father, is not in any way diminished or enhanced by these decisions. The believer who never in his life speaks in tongues nor cares to is in no wise less indwelt by the Holy Spirit. The drummer is no less an obedient child of God than is the organist. Matters of preference, secondary matters, do not reflect the righteousness of the person or the congregation. They are just that: Matters of preference.
I, as an elder, do not feel it to be my duty to alter these matters. I can, should I so choose, speak in tongues. In all honesty, I could be doing so right there in service without my nearest neighbor having the slightest hint of it. It doesn’t need to be on display. I may very well operate under the gift of prophecy or knowledge even here in this conservative congregation. I dare say that on occasion I do so, and that many another does as well, whether they recognize it as such or not. It doesn’t have to be the flashy, showy business that it has been made in other settings. The problem is that many have come to associate the gift with the flash. The church, this church, does not have need of embracing such practices. That may make it an uncomfortable setting for those who think otherwise, in fact I know it does. But, that does not in itself justify seeking change in the church. It may very well be God seeking change in the individual.
Let me return to that question: Are we guiding as God would have us to guide? I do believe that we are doing our best to do so. I do think that we each, in our private counsel with God, ask this question often. I do know my doubts as to my own capacity. I do know my God, that He is faithful. I know that to the degree I am committing my ways to Him, particularly as regards this service to His church, He is faithful to keep me.
I take comfort from a passage that Mr. Clarke brings forth in conjunction with his question. “I will give you shepherds after My own heart, who will feed you on knowledge and understanding” (Jer 3:15). I take comfort in this: They are His sheep. He cares for them. Surely, if I am no shepherd after His own heart, He will see to it that I am removed from being in a place to do His sheep harm. Again, that does not relieve me of responsibility and it does not render me incapable of error. I need only watch what is happening around the church community. Movements rise and movements fall, and the damage of the fall is greater in many regards than the benefits of the rise. We have a climate of name-brand ministry. We’ve got our stars and our key players and quite frankly they are all of them idols with clay feet. There may be those for whom this achievement of idol status has really been intentionally cultivated. I suspect there are far more who sought only to do what they felt God calling them to do and were placed up on their pedestals by those they served. It matters not how they got up on that pedestal. If they recognize it they must surely get themselves off of it with all due haste. If they do not recognize it they just as surely have no business being set there in the first place.
Notice, though, that God brings correction where this has happened. We rue the correction, but not because it is correction. We rue it because it was necessary. We rue it because we know the damage that has been done, the lives that have been hurt and the shame that has been cast upon the name of Christ as a result. We rue it because it ought not to have happened. Somewhere, a shepherd forgot his duty or forgot his place, and once more it fell to the Great Shepherd to rescue the sheep. But, sheep were hurt in the process. Some were rent by wolves. Some were made prey of these misguided shepherds. Some, though the Calvinist in me would maintain they were never sheep in the first place, have departed the fold determined never to return.
I say all this as a caution to myself. Take heed, Jeffrey, as to how you serve. Take heed as to how you live, for your life is a life of service. Take heed, for you know your character flaws, and would not wish for these to be taken by young sheep as exemplary. Take heed that as you lead it is by following your own Shepherd, the Lord Jesus Christ, and no other. Take heed lest, in your zeal to guard the sheep, you are acting in opposition to their Owner. It is a difficult path you have been called to walk for this season. Keep your eyes on the One who can lead you safely through, and your heart upon the assignment He has given.
The Focus (02/15/15)
We move from qualification to concern. What is the concern of the shepherd? Let it be accepted that our Good Shepherd is capable of choosing under-shepherds that accord with His style of shepherding. They shall be under-shepherds who are keenly aware that the sheep are not their own, and they shall be just as keenly aware that the sheep, though they have such under-shepherds, need the Shepherd. Peter again sets the example. I has lowered himself and exalted Christ. I am one such as you, except inasmuch as I was and am an eye-witness to the sufferings of Christ, for Whom we mutually labor and from Whom we all have such authority as we do. He Who has appointed us will return, and all we do in the interim must be done with His return clearly in mind.
How, then, do we labor as having our Good Shepherd in mind? We do so by recognizing that these sheep are His Church. He has defined His Church, setting His imprint upon it and upon each member thereof. We who serve as under-shepherds must therefore be concerned that we maintain His imprint. It is not given unto us to embellish His work by adding our own designs. Neither is it given to us to deface His work by removing what doesn’t suit us. That may seem obvious enough, but it is much more challenging than it may appear. Consider the great debates of theology. Consider those dividing points that demark the differences between Calvinist and Arminian, or between Reformist and Charismatic. By and large, the views held by these camps are so thoroughly at odds that it is impossible that both could be right. Yet, both are presumably seeking to serve the Shepherd by preserving His imprint upon the church. Both suppose themselves to be holding true to the pattern once delivered.
Herein is found a note of caution for us: If we have become so absolutist in our beliefs that we cannot hear even the least possibility of our own error, we have set ourselves in a very dangerous place. We have, in essence, set ourselves as god over God’s Truth, and that is no place to be. So, then, we are challenged to do our utmost to properly lay hold of that Truth even knowing our own imperfections. We are challenged to recognize our limitations and listen with minds sufficiently open to correction when we hear what does not agree. At the same time, we are required by our Good Shepherd not to be so open of mind as to accept every changing fashion of doctrine as valid. Is it any wonder, then, that our wise God saw fit to send the Holy Spirit to our aid, to provide us with the capacity to discern Truth from fiction? Is it any wonder that we are required to walk humbly before our God in recognition of our finitude?
We are called to maintain His imprint as best we may; depending always upon the Spirit He has sent to be our Advisor. He will bring to mind all that our Lord taught. He is certainly able to correct if we will heed what He says. Jesus, the faithful and good Shepherd of the Church will see to the preservation of the Church. He will use us in that effort, and to the degree that we are seeking to be faithful to His leading, I dare say He will do so in a fashion that gives us hope of that reward which Peter indicates. If He must do so in spite of us, this will also find its just reward, but not one likely to be to our pleasure. Be that as it may, let us as shepherds be mindful that the reward is not the point of this labor. The point of this labor is Life; that those sheep entrusted to our care may grow in Life as the Lord of Life imparts to them, and that we as sheep ourselves may likewise mature.
Matthew Henry offers a note of reminder to those who would shepherd the flock of God. “[Regard] the flock more than the fleece.” If I restrict this thought to matters of monetary gain, I cannot imagine it being much concern for the elder, for we are not paid for our efforts. The pastor, I suppose, could fall into such a mindset, and no doubt some do. There are assuredly abundant pastors for profit to be found, but I don’t think you’ll find many of them serving in the local church. Neither can we make the blanket assumption that any pastor with a national or international ministry is therefore a pastor for profit. I do, however, think it increases the risk to that pastor that he may become so.
For the elders, the fleece concept may consist in less tangible matters of pride and honor. It is certainly a danger that we may come to care more for the honor shown us than for the care required of us. I don’t see that happening amongst those with whom I serve, but I recognize the risk. Wherever one is vested with some degree of authority or with the responsibility of being the decision maker, there is the danger of becoming domineering. And Peter disallows that: Not as lording it over those in your charge. Yes, you are called upon to preside, as it were, to set direction and set out the boundaries. But, you are to do so as living examples.
Here, too, it seems to me we run rapidly into misconception. There is that perspective in Christian thinking these days that we are to go out and ‘be Jesus’ to the folks we meet. Oh! We may be the only Jesus they ever see. No doubt those who think along these lines are of good intention. They mean only to live in such a fashion as makes Christ known, to love their neighbor as they ought, and to be as certain as they may that all the credit redounds to His name alone. But, there is error in this as well. We cannot be Jesus. We serve Him, it is true, but we are not Him. If we are the only Jesus those around us ever see then they are just as lost and hopeless as if they had never seen us, for we are not the one they need to see. He is. Far better if we are mindful that we don’t go forth to be Jesus, but to represent Him faithfully. It is true for the sheep. It is true for the under-shepherd.
As I pursue my duties – and quite frankly even when I am not specifically pursuing my duties – I am called to live as an example to be followed. What is that but to say that I live as following the example of my Lord, who Himself made plain that He does only as He sees His Father doing? His interest concerns the welfare of the sheep, for they are His inheritance, given to Him by His Father. He is sworn to lose not a one from amongst those given to Him. That should be both a comfort and a caution to the elder as he goes about his days. It is a comfort insomuch as I can be assured that the Good Shepherd will assuredly care for His sheep even if I should fall short in my duties. It is a caution insomuch as I can be equally sure that if I must be excised for their security, I surely will be.
The call, then, is to see to His interests, for they are His sheep. His interests require that I am living as an example both inside the church and out. In the workplace, in the marketplace, at the library or in the home; wherever I am and whomever I may be dealing with, that is the call. Live such a life as is worthy of emulation. That can only be done to the degree that the life I live is done in emulation of the Shepherd I serve. That call certainly persists so long as I remain in this office of elder. It is absolutely certain that the call persists so long as this life persists, and throughout the eternity to follow. But, it is in this life that the call is a challenge.
Father, how greatly I need Your aid in this! How far I am from fulfilling this most basic of duties. I have said it before, and the reality of it has not changed. I did not feel the full weight of this call to living a righteous life before I took on the task of shepherding Your flock. I did not feel the great weight of temptation until set in this place. I fear that too often I feel so utterly insufficient to the task that I really don’t give it the effort I should. I pray Your forgiveness, and I pray Your Spirit with me to strengthen me such that I may truly repent and set myself to the work You have appointed me. I pray that You would so move upon me as to guide me in the direction of my own household first and foremost. You know the challenges there, the differences of view that pertain and the tensions that they produce, at least for me. You know how gladly I would simply avoid all confrontation, but You also know whether this is an occasion on which confrontation must be made. I crave Your wisdom as I seek Your course. I would not injure this sheep of Your flock who is so dear to me. Neither would I see her injured for want of my care on Your behalf. How sorely this tries me, You know. How it is to be resolved, You know. Let me only be faithful to Your guiding hand, o God, that the result may be to Your good pleasure. Jesus, I seek only to serve You as best I may, and I know I fail of it daily. Yet, it is in You I serve. Let me be more mindful of this. Let me be more purposeful in seeking Your guidance moment by moment, that I may lead as You lead me.
The Mindset (02/15/15)
I’m not sure what exactly I thought distinguished focus from mindset. The two are tight-coupled. But, as we see our focus is to be on doing as He pleases, not as we please, we also see very clearly that this is not at all about us. It was there somewhat in that which Clemens Alexandrinus said, that we are not made righteous for having been called, but called because righteous. But, let us add to this. It’s not that you’re so special. Your righteousness has not come to pass by your effort. It has come to pass because God is so good. He is so incredibly good that He has been able to establish you in righteousness in spite of yourself. He is so incredibly good that He has been able to fashion you into something useful for this office of elder in spite of yourself. He has seen to it that you recognize that your only fitness to serve is found in Him, that there is nothing here in which to find cause for pride; only for the utmost humility. God! That You should find me useful! That You should make me useful! It is too much for me!
How often do we find David expressing that very same sense of wonder? Who am I, Lord, that You should thus use me? Who am I that You should even give me the smallest moment’s attention? I am nothing. And yet, You have set me in this place of care over Your people. I think of Solomon, upon his learning that this would be his charge. Lord, just give me wisdom to care for them as I ought. Oh, Amen, Solomon!
God! That I may shepherd Your flock Your way. Far be it from me to seek a name for myself, to seek to leave my mark upon Your church. It is not my church to mark! It is Yours and I seek only to maintain it to Your liking.
How am I to do this? One thing that might help is to dwell on the fact that these sheep over whom He has set me as watchman are His chiefest possession. They are His hard-bought inheritance, paid for in full – paid for in blood. I have already hit on this, but it bears repeating. Don’t think for a minute that He is going to risk these sheep so that you can feel like you’re something. He will not and you are not. Even though you have been found sufficiently righteous as to be of service to Him, it’s His doing isn’t it? You know yourself too well to really suppose otherwise.
Calvin notes the three potential abuses of office that Peter addresses. They are sloth, avarice, and power-seeking. Any and all of these afflictions are too easy for me to recognize in myself when I am left to my own devices. They are held at bay when it comes to serving the church, I think, although even there, a bit of power-seeking can be a problem. But where am I in the workplace? What happens when I find my views rejected or belittled? To what degree does it become a personal offense if I am not consulted or, having been consulted, am not heeded? Yes, there is work to be done there.
As directly concerns the Church, the answer is to be clear: This is His Church. Here, again, Calvin offers a thought worth contemplation. Each church is as a farm within Christ’s domain. We elders are assigned to cultivate this farm that He may have fruit of it. We are tenant farmers, serfs of our liege-lord, and that is the sum total of our claims to dignity. He adds this caution, and it is one we must be mindful of whatever we may do for Christ. “Whatever men ascribe to themselves is taken away from the Lord.” I would not see this produce that false humility in us which is just pride by another name. I don’t think it calls for us to fall all over ourselves denying any credit when people thank us. That may be well and good, but it may also be just another form of pride. It has far more to do with inner state, I think, than outward show. If we fall into thinking ourselves something, then that theft is in progress. If we are simply thankful to have been found of use to our Lord, then I think we are in good standing, even if we respond with a ‘thank you’ when men are inclined to speak well of us.
Let me touch back on that idea of farming for Christ. It struck me as I read that in Calvin’s comments that this points us right back to the first assignment given the first man. Go tend the garden, that it may be fruitful. The command has never changed, has it? The call of the elder, the call of every Christian, really, is to go tend the garden. The fields are white for harvest, says the Lord. Feed My sheep, says the Lord. There are myriad sheep out there who still have need to be brought into the fold, and myriad sheep in the fold already who need care, for they are hurting. Here is your labor, oh farmer. See you to it.
The Duties (02/16/15)
From the threefold temptation of the shepherd we can move to the threefold duty as it is set before us. It begins with feeding. Feeding consists in both the preaching of the word and, Matthew Henry reminds, disciplining according to the prescriptions of the word. To preach the word is to declare the Gospel. This is Gospel ministry, and that requires the Gospel. We cannot possibly pursue a course of Gospel ministry by pushing the Law. To be sure, the Law remains. The standards of God do not change for He does not change. But Law without Gospel can only be the preaching of doom, for hope is removed by the impossibility of compliance.
Having the Gospel as our content for preaching, and the Law clearly in view as we do so, serves to safeguard us against preaching what is merely our own vain imagination. At the very least, it should. If our teaching consists in figments of our own devising – opinion rather than exposition – then we do our sheep no favors. Indeed, we feed them on poison whom we are supposed to supply with good food. We are by nature creatures of imagination. It is often said that the true life of the man is lived solely in his head. That actually rather inverts the case, I think, but the point is made. We have ideals in mind. We have vivid portraits of who we should like to be seen to be. That the outward reality of our actions so rarely correlates to this image does little to discourage our self-esteem, though it certainly should.
This same tendency can infect our handling of Scripture. Rather than pursuing the intended message, we read our own message into the text. We hear what we want to hear. We then fall to teaching this preferred meaning as the true meaning, and by doing so, the poison spreads. Those who are taught may not have the skills for proper exegesis. They may be poorly equipped, humanly speaking, to discern the error in our message. Then, too, the nature of the office will tend to lend our words greater weight whether deservedly or not. Teacher beware! Check yourself. See to it that what you are feeding these sheep is true food and not poisonous insistence upon false meaning. There is no need to seek out hidden depths of meaning that we might reveal to the burnishing of our own pedigree. That way lies the Gnosticism we find the Apostles so urgent in countering. No. The simple Truths of the Gospel are more than sufficient to fill a lifetime of learning and of teaching. Those seeking to be wowed by new revelations have failed utterly to grasp the magnificence already made known.
The second duty of the elder is that of personal care. It is not enough to feed the sheep. They need guarding. Nothing could serve more to tempt the wolf into action than a nice fat sheep left alone and defenseless. Pay heed, shepherd! To have charge of the sheep is to be responsible for their loss. Woe to the shepherd who serves solely for the benefit of his pride. Woe to the sheep who find themselves with no better shepherd than that, for they are in great peril. But, the shepherd shall bear responsibility. The sheep have their own responsibility and they, too will answer for their actions, but here we are concerned with the shepherd.
We cannot leave nature to take its course. If that were the call, there would be no need for the office. Nature can take its course quite nicely without us. But, we are called to guard, to protect, to watch over. These sheep (of which we are but prime examples ourselves) are somewhat witless in their innocence. Innocence is all well and good, but for innocence to persist, it seems there must be those less innocent to watch and care. The shepherd who is as blithely unaware of the appetites of the wolf as his sheep will be of little use in guarding them. Think of the admonition Jesus gave His own. “I send you as sheep into the midst of wolves. So be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves” (Mt 10:16). Innocence alone will not serve in this case. Shrewdness is required, but without malice. Care for the sheep will require it.
Think about David out there in the field as a youth. Was there an innocence to the man? To be sure! How he rejoiced in days spent in song to his Lord. But, that innocence did not extend to the degree that he was unaware of the reason for his being there. The nature of those animals that sought for a weakness in his guard, and would avail themselves of a moment’s neglect to tear at the flock found no such weakness in David. He was ready. He knew the dangers to his charges, and he was quick to see to their defense when dangers came. Lion, wolf and bear alike discovered that David was a true shepherd. What shall we say for our own case?
It is a question we must ask daily. Are we caring for our sheep or letting nature take its course? I think of the number of difficult situations of which I have become aware over the last few years – things about which I would as soon have remained blissfully ignorant – and I must ask myself whether we are doing all we can; whether we are doing all we should. Surely, it seems, if the shepherd were fully at his labors these things would not occur. I would suppose that if I had the full training of a seminary background it would include the advice that this is assuredly not the case. People will be people how ever carefully we try to see to their security. As a parent, I could suffer the same anxieties as regards my children, and the answer of the Spirit is much the same. Their refusal to walk in the Way is not necessarily evidence of your failure to lead in the Way. It might be, and if it is then to the degree that there is time to make amends, you ought certainly to repent and try to be more effective. But, without God that’s not going to get very far, is it? So, too, the elder.
We can expend our energies in self-examination, and to some degree we must. But, to wallow in failures that were never within our power to prevent is to be distracted from those duties which do lie in our power as God provides the power. If we have been leaving things to nature, as it were, then it is time we wake up to our duty. Indeed, it might arguably be time we stepped down in recognition of our failure as shepherds. If, on the other hand, the testimony of our Savior is that we have done our duties to the best of our abilities, then press on! The shepherd is responsible to safeguard the sheep, but that sheep who refuses to be safeguarded shall have to answer for itself.
The JFB extends this responsibility somewhat, and I am not certain at this juncture that I agree. They would hold that this duty of care and oversight extends to all, not only those among whom we are set. They are to have our primary attention, the argument goes, but not our exclusive attention. To the degree that this is intended to make a space for evangelistic outreach I could concur. To the degree that Christian disposition is not restricted to in-house application I would concur. But, there remains this which sets a boundary we ought not to cross: Back in 1Peter 4:15, one of the characteristics we were called not to display was that of the ‘troublesome meddler’, as the NASB translates it. The actual term is allotriepiskopos, and it is unique to that passage. But, the gist of the term is pretty clear in its construction. Episkopos, overseer; the very activity we are discussing here in verse 2. The other half of the term, allotrios speaks of one who belongs to another, who is not one’s own. That would seem to set a boundary, would it not? Thou shalt not act the overseer in regard to some other shepherd’s flock. This doesn’t preclude seeking the lost sheep who know no shepherd, but it does rather suggest that we have more than enough to occupy ourselves with here in our own fold.
The third duty that Mr. Henry notes is that of providing the example. We are to be examples of holiness. Feeling up to that? We are to be examples of self-denial. We can certainly recognize the need for such an example in this self-indulgent world. We are to be examples in the mortification of sins. Mind you, that is something far more than putting up a façade of a Sunday. How shall they see our example of mortification of sins if we are very carefully concealing and denying the fact that we ever sin at all? That is not to suggest we ought to glorify in our having sinned, or make bold announcement of it. But, it is a call to be real with one another. If the shepherd sets himself forth as having so perfected holiness as to suffer no more from sin then he does his sheep a huge disservice. If he presents sin as so inevitable that we may as well just accept it and move on, he is no shepherd whatsoever, but a wolf.
The thing I see common to these duties is that to pursue them as they ought to be pursued it will be necessary for the shepherd to be involved in the daily lives of the sheep. The once a week moments we share with them on Sunday cannot suffice. Even if we could add a weekly chat with each of them, though it would help, it cannot suffice. The shepherd, I would note, lived out there with his sheep. He was with them day and night, rain or shine. He knew them as he knew himself. He knew their names. He knew their traits. He knew their strong points and their weaknesses on an individual basis.
We cannot hope to achieve that level of involvement with our charges. The realities of life preclude it. We cannot even manage that weekly chat, given the number of sheep and the hours available. But, we ought to be trying, in whatever fashion we can, to arrive at something more than a surface knowledge of one another. And let this be clear to us: It is a bidirectional thing. It is not just that we need to know the sheep. The sheep need to know us. They need to know us warts and all. If we cannot be real with them, there is very little likelihood that they shall choose to be real with us. That’s going to take courage on the part of the shepherd. But, then, you weren’t set in the shepherd’s position on account of your frailty. Be so bold as to admit your struggles. Be so bold as to hear of your brother’s struggles, that you may encourage one another unto perseverance.
This is an effort. It is an effort that does not scale well. We cannot hope to apply it to large numbers. We under-shepherds have need of under-under-shepherds as it were, else we cannot hope to properly guard those amongst whom we have been set. But, rest assured, the duty, however we may be enabled to share it out, will remain a duty that calls for sacrifice. As a new season on the board approaches, it strikes me as a good time to count the cost and decide whether I am willing to the sacrifice. If it be that I am, then I must actually make that sacrifice, find those whom I can call alongside to my aid, find the time to give to mutual equipping, and use it to God’s purpose.
The Example (02/17/15)
Peter sets a good example for what he is encouraging. This letter is of a piece with the very thing he advises: Feed and protect. But, Peter does not direct our attention to his own example. He directs us to a much better example: That of the great Shepherd whose flocks we watch. He is, as Calvin says, the sole Pastor to whom we submit. We who are His under-shepherds can only claim submission to Him to the degree we represent Him, and we only represent Him so far as we accord with His command and His authority. The under-shepherd who oversteps his bounds has relinquished title to that office. The under-shepherd who neglects his assignment has done no differently.
It is clear, as has been noted repeatedly in this study, that there is no possibility whatsoever of satisfactorily filling this office in one’s own power. Neither is God inclined to see it filled satisfactorily apart from our best effort. It takes both. It is a cooperative effort, God and man working together to set an example for the flock to follow. In Christ Jesus, we have the perfect Example. He is the model upon which Christian life must be formed. He is the goal of our effort and instruction. The elder is called to be a man after God’s own heart, a man determined to demonstrate by his own life what it means to be modeled upon Christ.
Think about Paul’s call to the Philippians. “Join in following my example, and observe those who walk according to the pattern you have in us” (Php 3:17). It still strikes me as an amazing thing that there was ever a man willing to be so bold as to offer himself as an example worth following. Yet, here is Paul doing just that, and here is Peter instructing us that this is exactly as it ought to be. Shepherd by example. Live out a life which is able to be just as bold. That example requires that we are not just emulating our Lord, not just trying our best, but are actively cooperating with Him in the shaping of our own lives. It is beyond us, but it is never beyond Him.
This is not some optional, extra-credit assignment that we are given. It is the most fundamental task of the shepherd. Lead by example. Show them that our Lord is able. If He can empower you to live as He desires you to live, to care as He cares for His own; then He can empower them to do likewise. If, by your example, you are loudly declaring His inability to change you – you who have the esteem of the sheep in at least such degree as leads them to set you over their care – then what hope is there for them? Your example matters greatly.
There are two ways you can respond to this. You can despair of your ever being worthy of the call He has put upon you, or you can recognize the greatness of He who called you. He is the great Shepherd who orders things as He wills. He is able. It really isn’t about you as cliché as that thought has become. It isn’t. You are set as an example for the flock, but it is far more an example of His goodness, certainly not your own! If that hasn’t fully registered, then get over yourself! You have no cause in yourself for confidence and you are certainly no cause for confidence yourself. But, there is great cause for confidence in Him. These are, after all, His sheep. He has established them in holy, loving communion with Himself and with each other. He is assuredly able to keep them as He has established them.
The same can be said of you as you serve in this office of elder. He has established you in this office and He is able to keep you, to see to it that you fulfill the office to His satisfaction. He is able. That is the key to this whole thing, and that, dear shepherd, is what your example must demonstrate. Hope in Him. Rest in Him. The flock is orderly, because He has made it so. This is not excuse to be lax in your duties. It is sound reason not to be alarmed at your self-assessment. Turn your eyes upon that great confidence with which Peter closes off this exhortation. You will receive the unfading crown of glory. Hope in that thing unseen. Don’t take it as so thoroughly guaranteed that it matters not how you serve out your term here. By no means! That will not fly as concerns your confronting of your own sins, and it certainly won’t fly as concerns your caring for Christ’s people. But, serve with confidence in God. Know that He is working in you for His good pleasure (Php 2:13). Know this, and work towards His good pleasure with fear and trembling as He does it. Hope in Christ, shepherd, and you shall indeed provide an example worth following.
