Pastoral Ethics

Philemon 1:14 (KJV)

But without thy mind would I do nothing; that thy benefit should not be as it were of necessity, but willingly.

I came to see the little epistle to Philemon as a lesson in pastoral ethics. Certainly, Paul was not pastoring at this time, but he was always much more than a pastor and an example to all pastors. I do not believe Philemon is a pastor either but that a church did meet in his house. Onesimus was a slave belonging to Philemon who ran away, probably stole from him to pay for his flight and ended up in Rome where he met Paul. Paul led him to the Lord, discipled him for a period of time sufficient that Onesimus had the character to follow Paul’s instructions and return to Philemon. Paul admitted that Onesimus was profitable to him and that he would have liked to keep him with him. 

Paul could have reasoned that he had done more good with Onesimus than Philemon did and the Onesimus was more likely to grow spiritually with him than with Philemon, who had not even won him to Christ. But Paul was not willing to keep him without Philemon’s approval. He trained Onesimus to return, sent him with a letter that did not actually request Onesimus return and perhaps Onesimus did not know the details of and offered to repay any damage Onesimus had caused. 

Pastors could learn from this. When a member of another church comes to them, their job is to return them in better spiritual condition than they found them. Even if they would like to keep them in their own ministry, it is not appropriate for them to say so. 

• They should work with them until they develop the character to return a better member than they were. They are not to judge the abilities of the other pastor. 
• They would be wise never to express a desire that the member remains with them, even when they have that desire. 
• They should contact the other pastor, not to tell them that a member visited in their church but to ask their pastor what his mind is concerning them. 

That would be pastoral ethics. 

Marvin McKenzie

In the fields

A Word of Caution Concerning John Piper

Prompted by a link from a couple of independent Baptist pastors, I viewed a five-minute segment of a message delivered by John Piper to the American Association of Christian Counsellors.[1]Someone wrote that this is the “Scott’s Tots” of preaching, a term I had never heard before. Apparently, it is a reference to a particularly funny episode of a television comedy show. 

One response to the Scott’s Tots remark was to say, “if this is Scott’s Tots preaching, sign me up.”

John Piper is the son of a fundamentalist preacher and the retired pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Piper is a class act. He always appears to be gracious, kind and compassionate. 

May I remind my reader that class does not equate with correctness?

I consider John Piper to be one of the most detrimental Christian thinkers of this generation. He is so articulate, so classy and so soft-spoken that it would be possible to forget that his theology is wrong. 

·      He is strongly Calvinist

·      He once proposed, unsuccessfully, to his “Baptist” church that they invite unbaptized believers into the membership of the church and trust God He will lead them to scriptural baptism some time in the future. 

Piper is friendly with Fundamentalists and has written a document declaring such.[2]All that means is that fundamental Baptist preachers may read his materials without feeling threatened as they are being unwittingly sucked down the same path from Fundamentalism to error as he is. 

He is dangerous. I suggest he be avoided. I certainly urge caution and recommend a strong mentor help a younger preacher through Piper’s materials. 

Marvin McKenzie 

In the fields

---

[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdTddzmIvWA

[2]https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/20-reasons-i-dont-take-potshots-at-fundamentalists

Will We Observe the Feast of Tabernacles?

I am semi-frequently in conversation with a man who practices Messianic Judaism. He is pleasant in his exchanges with me, but he is quite clear concerning areas of difference. Recently he challenged me regarding a Daily Visit with God where I mentioned the Jews and the Feast of Tabernacles. He had only one objection; he pointed out that the Jews were not the only ones who observed the Feast of Tabernacles, there were eleven other tribes in Israel. He then also encouraged me to find a group observing the Feast of Tabernacles to witness it first hand. Finally, he asked if I believe we will observe the Feast of Tabernacles in the Millennial Kingdom.

Below is my answer

“I too appreciate our exchanges. I especially appreciate that you offer more than an "I agree" or "Amen." It is good for the head to have a bit more to chew on than that.

One of the interesting things to ponder, at least in my mind, is how one's foundational paradigm impacts everything else he understands. You and have I think, differing foundational premises. Because of that we tend to interpret the same concepts differently. I am thankful that, so far anyway, we have been able to differ pleasantly. :-)

First, regarding the term, Jews, while it might be true that the term Jew is derived from the word Judah, not every etymologist agrees. It may not have any relationship with Judah. It is an English word, made to refer to the people of Israel and has a few potential roots, Judah being just one of them. Let's assume though, that it does derive from Judah, By the time we find the term used in the Bible, it is obviously being used to refer to more than the tribe of Judah. Jesus was born more than the King of Judah, but the King of Israel yet we find the term "King of the Jews" used repeatedly in the N.T.

1 Corinthians 10:32 (KJV)

Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:

The word Jews in this verse obviously references all of the people in Israel just as Gentiles references all of the nations not belonging to Israel.
I used the word Jews in the most normal sense today, not in the strictest sense.

Regarding observing a group observing the Feast of Tabernacles today - I think that is an excellent idea! There would be great insights to be gleaned. I would suggest though, that they would not be Biblical insights. The Jews have long ago lost any real Biblical insights and merely practice tradition. After these many thousands of years, I do not believe they have any better understanding of how the Feast of Tabernacles is to be practiced than I do because I have the only fully preserved set of instructions in my Bible.

I do not believe "we" who are Christians today, will be keeping the Feast of Tabernacles in the Millennial Kingdom. We will have been changed, we will have taken the likeness of Christ and will be joint-heirs with Him. We will rule with Him. I do believe that, for the 1000 years of the Millennial Kingdom, the Jews (who survived the seven-year Tribulation and the judgment in the valley[1]) will observe Temple related holy days and feasts. I can assume that would include the Feast of Tabernacles. But whatever Temple practices they have will have a different significance because of the presence of Jesus Christ. Every holy day, feast, and sacrifice was a type of Jesus Christ and finds its fulfillment in Jesus. None of them are necessary today - or in the Kingdom - because they have been finished in the work of Christ.

Marvin McKenzie

In the fields

---

[1]Joel 3:14 (KJV)

Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision: for the day of the LORD is near in the valley of decision.

Matthew 25:32-33 (KJV)

And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.