A few weeks ago in my Foundations of Youth Ministry class, we talked about H.A.B.I.T.S. an anagram presented in Doug Fields’ A Purpose Driven Youth Ministry, meaning Hang time with God, Accountability partner, Bible memorization, Involvement with the Chuch body, Tithing commitment, and Study scripture; respectively. My teacher asked the class what we thought about the anagram and whether or not we would add/subtract from any of the six items.

I raise my hand and said that I did not agree that it should be a requirement to have Bible memorization (to be honest I disagree with more than that, but I do not want the class to stone me – yet). Anyways, I said that the Bible does not require us to memorize it and that adding requirements to Christianity is wrong.

NOTE: I was not saying that scripture memorization was wrong, just not required.

Well, there were a lot of students who disagreed with me. In fact, right after I made my comment someone pointed to me and said, “Do you mean to tell me that scripture does not teach that we should memorize it?” To which I responde, “Absolutely, unless you can provide me with scripture that does…” He and another student responded with these scriptures:

“Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.” – Psalm 119:11 KJV
“And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart” – Deut. 6:6 KJV

I cannot remember any other verses they may have said, but these are the two I remember more clearly (and I think the only two they gave me).

I responded, “You will have to do a lot of work to convince me that these verses are telling us to memorize scripture.”

I emphasized over and over again in the class that I had no problem with Bible memorization – in fact I think it is beneficial for some people. At the same time, I do not think it is required and I do not think these verses teach us to memorize scripture but instead to give reverence to God’s word, loving Him with everything and loving our neighbors as ourselves.

With that said, I find it much more beneficial for me to study and know scripture than to memorize a few catch verses. Through studying I find myself knowing, learning, and remember scripture and what it teaches.

Question: Does the Bible tell use to memorize it?

In 1 Timothy 3 Paul talks about the overseer and the deacon. We have come to understand these descriptions as the office of overseer and the office of deacon. I am going to look at each word and talk about what makes us see them as an office.

OVERSEER
There are two words used in 1 Timothy 3 for overseer. The first word is επισκοπή (1 Tim. 3:1) is translated as “office of overseer” in the NASB and “position of bishop” in the NKJV. The second word επίσκοπος (1 Tim 3:2) is translated simply as “overseer” or “bishop” (respectively). These are two different words but they are greatly related to each other.

The first word (επισκοπή) occurs four times in the New Testament (Luke 19:44 – visitation; Acts 1:20 – office; 1 Timothy 3:1 – office of overseer; and 1 Peter 2:12 – visitation). According to BDAG (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3rd Ed., Pg.. 379) the word has three definitions: (1) the act of watching over with special reference to being present, visitation; (2) position of responsibility, position, assignment; (3) engagement in oversight, supervision. BDAG sites the latter definition as that best suited for 1 Timothy 3. BDAG also states that the second definition is “not an office as such, but activity of witnessing in line with the specifications in Ac 1:8, 21f.”

Based on this evidence I believe the translations of Acts 1:20 and 1 Timothy 3:1 are misleading. The YLT translates Acts 1:20 as “and his oversight let another take” instead of the NASB’s attempt of “LET ANOTHER MAN TAKE HIS OFFICE.” The YLT translates 1 Timothy 3:1 as “If any one the oversight doth long for” instead of “if any man aspires to the office of overseer.” In both of these cases the YLT translation is superior to the NASB’s attempt.

The second word επίσκοπος occurs five times in the New Testament (Acts 20:28 – overseers; Philippians 1:1 – overseers; 1 Timothy 3:2 – overseer; Titus 1:7 – overseer; 1 Peter 2:25 – overseer). As you can plainly see it is translated as overseer in each occurrence. BDAG defines this word as one who has the responsibility of safeguarding or seeing to it that something is done in the correct way, guardian. This word can also be used as bishop, but BDAG warns of this because it is too “technical and loaded with late historical baggage.”

DEACON
In 1 Timothy 3:8 Paul starts talking about the deacons. The word διάκονος is translated as deacon. This word occurs in the New Testament 29 times. Here is how the word is used:

Servant – 18x – Mat. 20:26, 22:13, 23:11; Mark 9:35, 10:43; John 2:5, 2:9, 12:26; Rom. 15:8, 16:1; 1 Cor. 3:5; 2 Cor. 3:6, 6:4, 11:15(2x), 11:23; Col. 1:7, 4:7;
Minister – 8x – Rom. 13:4(2x); Gal. 2:17; Eph. 3:7, 6:21; Col. 1:23, 1:25; 1 Tim. 4:6;
Deacon – 3x – Phi. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:8, 3:12;

According to BDAG (Pg.. 230-231) the word διάκονος carries two definitions: (1) one who serves as an intermediary in a transaction, agent, intermediary, courier; (2) one who gets something done, at the behest of a superior, assistant. BDAG also states that “the English derivatives ‘deacon’ and ‘deaconess’ are technical terms, whose meaning varies in ecclesiastical history and are therefore inadequate for rendering NT usage of διάκονος – as one identified for special ministerial service in a Christian community. “

The English word Deacon occurs five times in the NT. Three are mentioned above and the other two are found in 1 Timothy 3:10 and 3:13. In 1 Timothy 3:10 the word being used is the verb διακονέω and is being translated as “let them serve as deacons” by the NASB or sometimes as “let them use the office of a deacon” by the KJV. The word διακονέω is generally used “to render service in a variety of ways either at someone’s behest or voluntarily and frequently with suggestion of movement” (BDAG, Pg.. 229). The translators added the words “as deacons” or “of a deacon” (respectively). The better translation is “let them serve” leaving off the “as deacons.” The YLT actually does render this verb as “let them minister.”

The same Greek verb is being used in 1 Timothy 3:13 and is being translated as “those who have served [well] as deacons” (NASB) or “they that have used the office of a deacon [well]” (KJV) – ‘well’ is in parenthesis because it comes from a different Greek word. As you can see the translators of the NASB and KJV are consistent in their adding of “as deacons” and “of a deacon” (respectively). The YLT is also consistent in their proper rendering of “those who did minister [well].”

THE OFFICE OF OVERSEER AND THE OFFICE OF DEACON
As you can see there are translations that translate both the overseer and the deacon as an office. The question is, are these offices? The word translated as “office of a deacon” is a verb and has no support in the words definition to call it an office. The word translated as “office of an overseer” is a noun and there are places where the word was translated strictly as “office” but there are other translations that do not stray from the meaning of the word.

We have to come to the text without presuppositions or, at least, with the knowledge of our presuppositions. If you lived on an island, had a Greek bible, had a Greek lexicon, and never knew anything about an office of overseer or an office of deacon would you translate these words in 1 Timothy 3 as an office at all? I think the evidence suggests that you would not, so why did the NASB and the KJV translate these words as an office? Answer: The qualifications.

In 1 Timothy 3 – Part 1 I discussed what these qualifications actually mean. There are other evidences for my position. Look at the qualifications for other offices found in the Bible. Check these out:

The Office of So-Called Brother (1 Corinthians 5:11)
I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler . . .

The Office of Unrighteous (1 Corinthians 6:9)
Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

The Office of Law-Breakers (1 Timothy 1:9-10)
law is . . . for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching . . .

The Office of Other-People (Luke 18:11)
God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector . . .

You see, just because there are a list of items that describe a person does not mean that it is an office.

Discussion welcome as usual…
Lew

A few months ago a friend of mine sent me to a blog which had a segment from a book called So You Don’t Want to Go to Church Anymore. I downloaded the available PDF and stored it on my jumpdrive. After a few months I had totally forgotten about the book. Last week this same friend mentioned the book and I remembered that I had once downloaded it with the intention of reading it. He encouraged me to read it.

So I read the book and finished it in a few days (only a few hours of reading). The book was awesome and it challenged me in many ways. I highly encourage those who are on a similar journey to read this book. You can download it or purchase it at http://www.jakecolsen.com/.

The only warning I can give is the same warning that was given to me. Basically, the book is really good but read it carefully and thoughtfully.

Some of you may have heard of the recent drama at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (SWBTS). For those of you who have not, Rev. Dwight McKissic spoke at their chapel on Tuesday, August 29th. Baptism and the filling of the Holy Spirit was the topic of his sermon.

When you are talking about this topic from the Bible you will almost always be confronted with the concept of speaking in tongues. Mr. McKissic was no exception to this rule. He talked about tongues and endorsed the use of tongues as a spiritual gift by the Holy Spirit. During his sermon he made mention of the current policy set in the International Mission Board (IMB) not allowing any missionary the right to serve in the IMB if they practice the use of tongues or a private prayer language. The policy can be found at: http://www.imb.org/core/story.asp?storyID=3834&LanguageID=1709

There are some who completely disagree with this move by the IMB and Mr. McKissic is one of those people. In his sermon he talked about the use of tongues and that he himself was a practitioner of tongues in his private prayer life. He believes that this policy disqualifies a lot of Baptists who would make excellent missionaries. I have to agree.

So why did I title this blog “Roman Baptists”? Well, it is a little play on words. After the sermon, SWBTS discontinued the ability to download his sermon for free. They did this for two reasons (according to their website). First they did not want to look like they support him in questioning the authority of the IMB and second they fear that his views might be “harmful to the churches.”

Basically it reminds me of Catholicism (at least old-school Catholicism) – if you don’t agree with them, they’ll shut you up. Basically they feared that your views might tear down their institution so they did what was necessary to protect their “precious” institution.

Read an article about this here.
Read SWBTS statement concerning Mr. McKissic’s sermon here.
Read Mr. McKissic’s sermon here.
Read a letter Mr. McKissic wrote to Dr. Patterson (the president of SWBTS) concerning this issue here.

Last night, in one of my classes the professor ended the class by stating that the Bible never asks or answers the question, “How close to sin can you get without sinning?” but always asks and answers the question, “How close to Jesus can you get?”

The point he was trying to make is that it is a wrong attitude to try to figure out what you can get away with instead of focusing on how you can build up your relationship with Jesus. At first glance this seems great, but it is the application that fails.

In application he talked about the fact that he promotes abstinence from alcohol and has been called legalistic because of his stand. As some of you know, I have recently written a paper refuting the positions taken by those who teach abstinence from alcohol as a biblical position. I have not posted this paper online anywhere yet and I may not (more on this later). I do tend to agree that those who promote abstinence from alcohol are being pharisaical or legalistic. That is not to say that abstaining from alcohol is wrong, just wrong to force on other believers. Of course we all agree that drunkenness is wrong and there are clear teachings in the Bible against drunkenness. But there is a fundamental difference between getting drunk and drinking. If you use the question my professor posed to the class, “How close to Jesus can you get?” and apply it to the alcohol discussion, you have the burden to prove that person X who abstains from alcohol is able to get closer to Jesus than person Y who drinks in moderation (never getting drunk).

He also mentioned a youth retreat he went on once and he told all of the youth to bring at least one pair of khakis to wear to their “worship service.” His whole premise for this is that we should not dress like the world, we should be distinct from the world. Stating that the world would see the difference in us and would be able to recognize us as Christians because of what we wear. This argument really falls short for me, for several reasons.

1. The world wears Khakis… if we are called to wear clothes that are not found in the world, then we need to invent new clothes that only Christians can wear.
2. If this principle is true, shouldn’t we wear Khakis everyday? Last time I checked, not much of the world is inside the church building every Sunday.
3. The Church is suppose to be a gathering of your spiritual family. Does requiring certain types of clothing really impress the idea of family? Last time I gathered with my physical family I was wearing a t-shirt and pants.
4. The burden of proof still lies at the feet of the man who thinks that wearing a suit and tie to the church brings him closer to Jesus than the man who wears jeans and a t-shirt (never dressing immodestly).

He did specifically mention those “church-goers” who wear less than modest clothing at the gathering. He said that the man-of-God should not have to deal with seeing that when he is preaching God’s word. Now do not get me wrong, I do agree what we should dress modestly, both men and women. We should not be wearing anything that could cause a weaker brother/sister to stumble. I do have a couple of problems/clarifications with the theology behind his statement.

1. This also applies to what we wear in the world, we should be modest 24/7.
2. In my opinion, the “man-of-God,” is already a one-woman-man and does not have to deal with the lust that his weaker brothers/sisters might be dealing with. If you hold to the idea that preachers should not have to look upon a worldly dressed Christian because of lust, then that same man should not be witnessing/evangelizing the world, otherwise he might lust after those woman too. Surely the prostitutes that Jesus talked with were not wearing their “Sunday’s best.”

I have been thinking about these issues pretty much all night. If you hold to some of these ideas, I hope I have challenged what you think.

Now for business… as I mentioned above I wrote a paper refuting the positions that many alcohol abstainers hold to. I think it is a pretty good paper. I actually gave a copy to Dr. Akin (the SEBTS President) and he commented on it for me. I plan on beefing the paper up and making it the best argument possible. Anyways, I have been thinking about this for about a month now, but I was thinking of writing a book. It will be called, The Old Wives Tales of Christianity or something like that… not really sure yet. Anyways, in this book I will have a chapter dedicated to all sorts of different things that some Christians hold to. One of the chapters will be my paper on alcohol. I was thinking about other things I could write about. For now I have, Gambling and Clothing. If you have any other ideas please send them to me, a three chapter book will be pretty useless.

Well that’s it for now, thanks for reading.