SOME MORE QUESTIONS

  1. Is the Church ever called the “Body” of the Holy Father?
  2. Is the Church ever called the “Body” of the Holy Spirit?
  3. Is the Church ever called the “Body” of Jesus Christ?
  4. Are all three said to indwell the “Body”?
  5. Is the Church ever said to be the “bride”/”wife” of the Father?
  6. Is the Church ever said to be the “bride/”wife” of the Holy Spirit?
  7. Is the Church ever said to be the “bride”/”wife” of the Lord Jesus?
  8. Is an individual Christian ever called the “bride”/”wife” of the Lord Jesus?
  9. Is there any significance to the answers to the questions above?
  10. If yes what might it be?
  11. Is there anything at stake one way or another?

QUESTIONS

  • Is someone morally “free” who eagerly chooses to oppress, torture, rape and murder?
  • Does someone who is not morally free make a *choice* to oppress, torture, rape and murder?
  • Does someone *choose* to do good who is not morally “free” to “choose” that good?
  • Is that good (thing) *good* if he had no moral freedom to do otherwise?

ON BEING “IN THE KNOW”

A word means what a writer or speaker means it to mean.

It’s really interesting how context reveals the “meaning” of a word or a phrase. The more finely-tuned, the richer our understanding of context, the better we will understand what a writer or speaker is immediately “after”.

We experience the truth of this every day but we do it so easily that we’re rarely aware that we’re doing it. Those with a full awareness of the context are aware of the grammatical/lexical possibilities of the words spoken but they’re also aware of things—truths, realities, events—that others are unaware of. Those not fully “in the know” while they are well aware of the grammatical or lexical possibilities of the words being used don’t “get” what’s going on in the speaker’s mind nor do they “get” what has been generated in the minds of those “in the know” who are part of those being addressed. (This is true even if the person who doesn’t have a full grasp of the context is more accomplished linguistically than those “in the know.”)

For example a teacher whose vocabulary is greater than any of the students may not know how a familiar word is being used intentionally by Peter to goad Rachel.

Again, if I’m angry with someone and he knows it, I may say something with barbs in it that only he can feel and pick up on. To others there’s nothing critical in the remark and this is true even though they hear the same words spoken and with the same tone.

Here’s “John;” he’s certain that “Joe” has slandered him and he speaks to him about it. “Joe” denies any such thing but John isn’t convinced and in a Bible class where the discussion is “the works of the flesh” in Galatians 5 John works in some blunt words about the very great wickedness of slander. Everyone in the room agrees with John’s words but the only one that gets John’s real point (intention) is Joe. It isn’t only John’s words that give the “meaning” (here I’m talking about intention)—Joe gets his purpose, his intention, “what he is really doing with his words.

It’s because intention is at the center of what a person is doing with words that God says Job’s friends did not speak the truth about Him. Well, at least that’s part of the truth. The friends very often say things that are true but they use them to promote an agenda God did not endorse or approve whereas Job said false things in support of known massive underlying truths about God and this particular situation (see Job 42:7).

Context is everything and because (as we experience every day of our lives, perhaps) we can’t get the entire picture out of which speech arises, we must settle for something much less than an exhaustive understanding of the Bible’s message. (That claim, though I believe it’s true needs carefully developed.)

Back to John and Joe. As soon as John utters the word slander it fills with sounds and images and personal feelings that don’t exist on this occasion for anyone other than Joe. Joe knows he is being “got at.” The word in this setting fills with images that are not part of the word itself. Interpretation involves more than the customary lexical and grammatical possibility of the words used.

If “Harold” had brought the matter up it in the class it wouldn’t have generated those additional images in Joe’s mind though it might have made him feel uneasy. It would have been another general and well-known observation about one aspect of moral behavior.

But if Harold is a good friend and confidant of John then his remarks on slandering will probably generate other images and feelings that only Joe experiences. If Harold is clearly not John’s friend what Joe feels may be no more than some uneasiness.

Context is everything though it isn’t everything, if you know what I mean.

(In light of the above we can identify some of a writer’s basic convictions—he fervently promotes X and fiercely opposes Y so unless he contradicts himself or changes his mind we can go to his other writings and use those convictions to help us understand him. What we won’t do is interpret him so as to contradict his stance on X and Y. )

This has massive ramifications for all communication; biblical and otherwise. Speech creates “worlds” in which various feelings, responses, convictions and directions are promoted and pursued and shaped. If John’s words don’t “create” Joe’s world they certainly shape it and shape it forever.  (That point needs careful development.)

BRIEF REMARKS ON REPENTANCE

For NT believers there’s no doubt whatever that without Jesus, His person and work, Sin isn’t dealt with. Believers don’t need to prove again and again what no believer in 2,000 years has doubted or would dream of doubting.
Precisely how Christ “deals with” Sin is still disputed though it’s clear that the evangelical stream currently prefers the penal substitution view which I think is bad doctrine that requires either universalism or limited atonement as in Augustinian Calvinism. (I’ve worked with that some in The Dragon Slayer.) Setting aside atonement theory what’s indisputable for people like us is this: Christ dealt with Sin or it wasn’t dealt with. The Incarnation, life, death, resurrection and glorification of Jesus Christ is/are the objective realities the NT says are indispensable for reconciliation and so deal with Sin that it is not an indestructible enemy of sinners—Christ conquered it so that sinners can conquer it also [John 12:41;16.33; 1 John 5:4-5]. How He “conquered” it is complex and numerous theories are offered.
This focus on God in Christ is the “objective” side of reconciliation with God. Humanity didn’t provide that—God provided that independent of the human family. [That statement needs developed to be made clear since Jesus didn’t float down out of heaven but was born of a woman who was a child of Adam and Jesus is himself listed as a child of Adam in Luke 3.] All that is true, but it’s only on side of the “reconciliation” story. 2 Corinthians 5:18 insists that “all things” are of God (referencing the things just said) but 5.20 calls (using an aorist imperative) for humans to “be reconciled” to God. “Be you reconciled to God!” It’s clear that while human response isn’t what initiates or is the ground on which humans are reconciled to God, human response is required. The Godward side of the Story is that God does not reckon human sins against them (5.19), what should have kept humans and God alienated from one another is the human record of sinful conduct that rose out of sinful hearts. The man-ward side of the Story is what is rarely dealt with in evangelical teaching/preaching. There is still the fevered fear of “legalism” or “self-salvation”—a fear inherited from Augustine, systematized in Calvinism and Lutheranism.
All talk of earning a right relationship with God is nonsense. A saving relationship with God begins in grace, is sustained by grace and ends with grace! Paul knows that no one earns anything (Titus 3.5 is enough) but the same one who wrote Titus 3.5 wrote 2 Corinthians 5.20. The entire story of reconciliation (in any situation, human or divine) must include the attitude of both parties toward the other. There cannot be “reconciliation” while one chooses and lives out hostility toward the other. To do that is to remain alienated. There is no such thing as “being at one” when in fact one chooses not to be at one. This realignment of the heart with God is the subjective side of “reconciliation/atonement”.
God’s work of reconciliation/atonement is not done when Christ has done what He has done in His earthly ministry—He has yet to overcome the sinner’s chosen alienation. That’s where gospeling enters, that’s where the Father & Son, in and through the Spirit, brings the truth that woos and leads sinners to a transformed heart (2 Corinthian 5.19-20; John 6:63; 16:13-15; Romans 2:4; Phil 1.29; Acts 16:14; 18:27 and elsewhere).
With this work—God’s continued work of reconciling—the sinner now rejects his sin, his choice of alienation, he wants to be God’s friend and servant. He renounces his past sin and renounces the sinful bent that remains a part of him due to the years of alienation and he continues (by God’s help) to “put off” the various behaviors that were part of his “old man” status (the “old man” being his relationship to and inclusion in the first Adam—see Romans 5:12–6:6). In Jesus he is not now the same person he was before God brought him to a repentant faith. Now in faith he rejects all that the “old man” (first Adam) stands for and embraces all that the “last Adam” is and stands for (see 1 Corinthians 15:21-22; 45-49 with Romans 5.14, last phrase and 7:4-6). At no point is the sinner coerced, he is not forced to believe, his free-will capacity has not been obliterated but the truth of God so works that he is persuaded and shaped that his eyes and heart are opened by the Gospel (1 Corinthians 1:21; Acts 2.37; 16:13-15; Romans 10:17; 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14). God’s goodness leads the believer to renounce Sin in all its forms (attitude, thought and deed as well as the still existing weakness that leads to sins). This is the era, the dispensation of the Spirit in and by whom the glorified and exalted Lord Jesus makes Himself present to the world having completed in His earthly ministry, experience and glorification all that needed to be done then (John 14:16-18, 23; 16:12-15; Ephesians 3:14-21 and John 16:5-11).
This shouldn’t lead to an overstress on “doing” or “the pursuit of moral excellence” (though we were created for good works—Ephesians 2.10; 2 Corinthians 5:15; 1 Peter 2:24; Titus 3:4-8). We must take into account the truth that God cannot have fellowship with people who choose to be “darkness” (Colossians 1:13, 21; 2 Corinthians 6:14) and who remain therefore in the kingdom of darkness. At the heart of the human response to God—which is generated by God’s saving truth—is faith. Saving faith is both receiving as true what God has revealed concerning Himself in Jesus Christ and committing oneself in trusting obedience to that faith. This is what overcomes the world. Faith says of Jesus Christ, “He is right—we are wrong; He is righteous—we are unrighteous; He is the truth—we are lies……” That believing/trusting response (which is the gift of God as well as a free human response) takes us into and is the way of life in the “new world” (new creation). In and through Him we died to the “old world” and enter that new world; we die to “the old man” and are resurrected in the “new man” (Colossian 2:12; Ephesians 2:5-6).

“Reconciliation” includes the reorientation of a heart with God’s. It includes having the mind of Christ. God’s work of reconciliation is not completed until the sinner (whatever his limitations) takes God’s purpose as his own and that begins in and continues in a denial of the self and the embracing Jesus Christ as our life and identity [(Romans 6:1-6; Colossians 2:12; 3:1-5).

RUINS AND TOURISTS & “WHAT WAS HIS NAME?”

So He knocks on the door where the emperor was staying during his visit to Caesarea. The door opens, the Roman overlord scowls and the visitor asks, “You Tiberius, the Roman emperor?”
“That is who I am,” the Roman says. “And who are you?”
“I’m Jesus of Nazareth.”
“And what is your business here?”
“I came to tell you that I have come to dismantle your empire—to bring it down in ruins.”
“Talk like that will have you hanging on a tree!” said the most powerful man n the planet.
Over his shoulder as he walked away the young Jesus said, “I wouldn’t have it any other way.”
“You say that now,” the emperor barked after Him, “but when we hang you up on that tree that’ll be the end of you.”
Still over his shoulder the young Jewish prince shouted back, “Good luck with that! When I’m lifted up I will draw multiplied millions of people to me and into service in My kingdom while yours is in ruins.”
“Talkers like you, poor little man, we’ve heard hundreds of you. Here today, gone tomorrow. Before long they’ll have forgotten your very name.”
“You wish,” comes the reply, now from a distance and fading, “Millions will be singing, writing, speaking, praying and glorying in My name when you and your empire will be remembered only by its ruins and visited by tourists. I have seen empires like yours. Here today and gone tomorrow.”
(This piece I’ve borrowed from the upcoming The Irish Papers.)

Tiberius     Tourists     The Irish Papers

DIPLOMAS, BULLS & APOSTLES

A Department of Water Resources representative stops at a Texas ranch and talks with an old rancher. He tells the rancher, “I need to inspect your ranch for your water allocation.” The old man was busy, looks up and says, “Okay, but stay out of that field over there.”
The rep isn’t used to being told what he can’t do, flashes his credentials and says, “Mister, I have the authority of the Federal Government with me. See this card? This card means I am allowed to go wherever I wish on any agricultural land. No questions asked or answered. Have I made myself clear?”
The old rancher nodded, shrugged and goes about his chores. Before long he hears loud screams and spies the Water Rep running for his life and close behind is the rancher’s bull. The bull’s gaining with every step.
The Rep’s wide-eyed and terrified and he has reason to be, so the old man downs his tools, runs to the fence and yells at the top of his lungs…..”Your card! Show him your card!”
I suspect this is the kind of thing Paul would say to those church-troublers that marched into Corinth waving their letters of recommendation in the faces of the people everywhere they went (compare 2 Corinthians 3:1). When they came face to face with Jesus Paul might shout: “Your letters; show Him your letters of recommendation, your diplomas and your name on the honors list!”
Come to think of it, it won’t matter much what we wave in front of us when we come to meet God; not bank-balance, proof of popularity, size of our congregation, list of books written, conferences headlined, the famous names we can drop, the movies we starred in, the records we held—these aren’t the “Open Sesame” into the blessed presence of God. It won’t help a lot either to give a long list of venerable names who hold or held our views—that doesn’t make them wholesome or true. Well, not unless they’re venerable names like Paul.
But Paul is not as fashionable these days as he once was. It’s true, of course, he wasn’t fashionable with everyone back then but check who they were that said he was “wrong!” In 2 Corinthians 11:4-6 he says something like, “You dismiss me when I teach. But let someone else come along bringing a different gospel or a different spirit and you’ll pay attention to him. Well, I may not have the degrees or the flamboyance or charisma or learning of these academics but I know what I know and I know you should know that because I’ve been around you long enough for you to know it. These ‘newcomers’. I’m not one of these. They’ll be gone soon and millions will be reading and living by what God has given to me for endless years to come.”
We truly need to reflect thoughtfully on this entire section–2 Corinthians 11–13. Just read it through at one sitting. Listen to this man and note that he is responding to people who not only doubt his truthfulness but his teaching also. Read all of it and note 13:3-5 where they doubt him and his right to teaching and the truthfulness of what he tauight. “You seek proof of Christ speaking in me? Well, check yourself! If you are in Christ–how did you get there? You, novices that you are, in your wisdom, wisdom you learned from these newcomers, you doubt me and tell me I’m ‘wrong’? Remember how you came to know Him. But on the other hand, if you feel smart enough, certainly smart enough to tell me I’m ‘wrong’ about major doctrines, maybe you ought to doubt the gospel I taught you to bring you into the Lord Jesus.” (You can rest assured that when one of the university professors is being questioned for accuracy/believability by some student that he’ll quickly call on the Paul he trenchantly said was “wrong!”. But the student wouldn’t have Paul as the source of truth and authority—he would have his professor as source; a professor who doesn’t mind claiming he could have taught Paul a thing or two.)

On one occasion Paul strode into Jerusalem with an uncircumcised young Christian called Titus. He called out the leadership there that was saying if people wanted to be blessed in Jesus the Messiah that they would have to become Torah-observant and circumcised into the Judaic faith. That was heresy! (See Acts 15 and Galatians 2—3.) Paul said he wouldn’t give an inch to anybody, pillars of the Church or not! And when later, in Antioch, one of those pillars engaged in hypocrisy regarding the truth of the Gospel and Paul went after him (yes, and his close companion, Barnabas too). “I don’t care who they are,” he said, “if they undermine the truth of the Gospel I’m coming after them.” (Galatians 2:5-6, 11-14) This is the man who bent over backwards, becoming all things to all men that he might save some (1 Corinthians 9:19-23). “I don’t ask their names,” he would say. “I don’t ask where they were schooled or the position they hold or the company they keep. I listen to them teach and preach. If it’s Gospel and truth I’m happy. I don’t even care if they’re gospeling to glorify themselves or to outshine someone else—just so long as they’re gospeling!“ (See Philippians 1:14-18.) All this from “Mr Flexible!” But not when it came to what undermined the Word and Will of God and threatened the Gospel.
It won’t help, if we had and could recite the correct answers to all the theological questions if uncaringly we overwhelm with our new wisdom the people God gave into our care.
Recklessly, because we have become wise we pour out our newly–found wisdom and leave the the “unlearned” looking at one another—confused, wondering and wandering. Ezekiel 34:1-10 is a sobering section with a sobering truth that is as true today as it was when Babylon was hammering down the walls of Jerusalem all those centuries ago.

“AND HE GAVE *SOME* TO BE…”

This is a rambling sort of a piece. There’s no cure for me. But maybe there’s enough in it that some will feel whatever truth there is in it and maybe that’s all I should expect from what’s here.
They’re older now. They’re tired now! It isn’t just their age! They’ve raised children, they’ve worked hard so many years, they’ve been bereaved, they care for their grandchildren to allow the parents to make their way in life and they turned up to worship God with a faithfulness and consistency in that matter that can only be admired.
Many of them hear constant calls from preachers to better moral response, for more effort to engage in “the work of the Lord” and particularly in relation to the unconverted. After all evangelism is the responsibility of the entire congregation and not just the “evangelist”—who characteristically is more of a “pastor” than an evangelist.
For various reasons we find the word “pastor” unacceptable for one who is an “evangelist”. But many (is “most” too sweeping a statement?) who call themselves or are called “evangelists” are more like “pastors”. We might object to the term but we engage in the practice and (it would appear) without thought or apology. It might also be the case that quite some time ago we substituted the word “minister” for “evangelist” because it gives more room for maneuvering. I mean, if you call someone (or he calls himself) an “evangelist” we still sense that his business is outreach toward “the lost” (is that not true?); it (at least) strongly suggests that he mainly engages in “outreach,” in preaching to “the unforgiven” and “outsiders”. It seems such a focused “title”—“evangelist,” I mean. Call him a “minister” and it sort of suggests, if it doesn’t now plainly mean he “serves” the congregation. That’s what the word “minister” means—is it not? When you put it that way, he’s not exactly an “evangelist”. Unless the word “evangelist” is only another word for “minister” or “teacher” or “pastor”. But, then again, I thought that all kinds of people were “ministers” (that is, servants, people who engaged, one way or another, in “service”. You know, like, say, “a deacon” or a “deaconess”—is that Romans 16:1, where we have the feminine form of “servant/deacon”?) I do see that there was a distinct group named “deacons” (Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:8-13) which in very early days were often viewed as men being mentored toward becoming shepherds/pastors.
Ah, then, that might ease things. The preacher is just another one of the “ministers”. Is that how we use the word “minister” when we speak of “the local preacher”? Is that what we mean to do when we put his name up on our billboard outside? Is that what we mean when we introduce him to some friend with, “This is our minister”? Do we mean he’s just another one of us that “ministers”?
So, is it wrong to use the term “minister” of the one who preaches to the assembly of believers week after month after year? I think not! After all he serves (ministers to) the assembly in teaching and exhorting. But I do object to our confusing that with the work of an “evangelist”. I don’t doubt that on occasions these salaried ministers speak to the unforgiven, don’t you know, but then I know numerous people who speak the gospel to the as-yet unforgiven and they’re not salaried “ministers” or “evangelists,” “teachers” or “pastors”.
I do understand that areas of service often overlap. Thank God! One who teaches is “ministering”. One who evangelizes is ministering and one who pastors is ministering. ( I know one preacher who repeatedly insisted that Ephesians 4:11 should be rendered ”shepherds” rather than “pastors,” obviously ignorant (even after he was informed) of the fact that the word “pastor” means “shepherd”. His problem wasn’t lexical—it was/is sectarian.)
Romans 12:3-8 makes for enlightening reading—note the distinctions drawn between areas of service, though none of them are in conflict since, putting the best face on it, they are all expressions of the one body expressing the grace of God. Is it significant that he doesn’t mention evangelizing? Probably not. But then again, he might have thought that “evangelists” while they’re certainly God’s gift to the Church and to humanity was more focused to “outsiders” while his intention was to speak to “the family”. Moving from that.
Ephesians 4:7-10 speaks of Christ’s exaltation and His giving gifts to “men” and some of his gifts to “men” are listed in 4:11. I wonder if “men” in 4:8 speaks only of “Church members” or of humans in general. If Christ gave these specialized gifts mentioned to “Church members” for the benefit not only of the Church but for humanity perhaps “men” has that in mind.
No matter on that point also. Still, we’re not to forget that the Church is Christ for the world! What He gifts the Church with is for service to humanity. The gifts Paul mentioned are differentiated as: apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. (Assuming for the moment that the ‘Granville Sharp rule’ doesn’t hold here the shepherds and teachers are two groups and not one.)

We’re told that Christ gave “some” to be this, some to be that and others to be something else. We must permit the text to say what it says. Once more, there is no conflict here—all the gifts blend and sometimes overlap to bless the specific congregations and the entire Body of Christ with growth and maturity which, in this section, stresses its being grounded in God’s truth/doctrine that it might be filled with the fullness of God (maybe Ephesians 1:22-23 works well here). If “evangelist” is a particular form of ministry–what is an “evangelist“?

While it’s clear to me that the very existence of the Church of God is a proclamation of and by the exalted Lord who indwells the Church through and as the Holy Spirit, who is Christ’s Spirit, the Church is called to speak its truth (as the Lord Jesus did when He was engaged in His earthly phase of ministering). Again, that’s clear to me! Nevertheless, God gave “some” to evangelize. (You might Google Eusebius on the word “evangelist” and/or consult the wider literature on it and see what you think.) An “evangelist” doesn’t call himself. God gifts him and he is urged to be faithful to his calling (2 Timothy1:6; 4:5 and 1 Timothy 4:14). It’s probably important to say that the Timothy literature is more than the job description of an “evangelist” since Timothy functions as a special envoy of Paul at Ephesus (1 Timothy 1:3; 4:13 and perhaps Titus 1:5 is pertinent here).
My intention in this piece is to be accurate in presenting the biblical witness (write me if it needs corrected or balanced) but mainly I mean to be practical and speak to what I think is a common injustice about which little (that I know of) is being said.

I hear salaried preachers (many of them call themselves “evangelists”) repeatedly calling on the members of the congregations (“parts of Christ”—1 Corinthians 6:15) to engage in evangelism. That is, they are to carry the gospel to the non-Christians, the not-yet forgiven, the “outsiders” or the “unchurched”. My suspicion is that if the salaried “evangelists” spent their time evangelizing that more evangelism would be being done than currently is being done. At this point I’m isolating “evangelism” in the way that these ministers that I’m complaining about are doing. They want not only the young school and “professional” working people to engage in “outreach for the lost,” they want the older people to do the same (as if they weren’t already doing it). By “reaching out for the lost” (or some such phrase) they mean overt speaking the gospel to the unforgiven, or more likely, inviting them to the building so the unforgiven can hear the local minister (evangelist?) preach.
So what should we do? Should we say the congregation, “You can’t expect the minister to do your evangelizing for you.” Or, “You mustn’t sit like a bump on a log just listening.”
These “bumps on a log” are paying the speaker’s salary, they’re feeding him and his family, they’re paying for his education and the education of his children, they paying for the comfortable home for his wife and children, they’re paying for his health insurance and theirs, they’re characteristically setting his retirement fund aside. They do all this to allow this “evangelist” to do what?
Do they pray for him and his family? Do they pray for the church at large and speak to God about the sad, bad world that needs Him so? Did they raise children to God’s glory who are now in the Lord Jesus and thrilled about it? Do they work on their grandchildren in the same way? Do they care for grandchildren so that their own children have a chance to make their honorable way in the world? Do they live honorably and kindly, compassionately and generously with their neighbors and in their brief contact with strangers and so adorn the name of Christ? Do they let His light shine so that people see their good works and glorify God in heaven? In living that way do they make the preacher’s sermons have the ring of truth (presuming he gospels when he speaks)? Do they gospel “away from the building” and assuming that they bring guests does the minister gospel?  Did they and do they by their constant trust in God and keeping a congregation alive give that young man who now stands as a local minister (evangelist?) in his place in the Lord’s Body? These “bumps on a log”—did they and do they do all that and more?
Is any part of that evangelism?
I wonder how many salaried ministers (evangelists?) speak regularly to the unconverted “about their soul”? I wonder how many “unchurched” persons they speak with in, say, six months. Do they go looking for them? Or do they just “work to make friends” with one for six months with nothing more than, “Come to see us at church sometime”? I’m not opposing “salaried” teachers or evangelists. I’m opposed to their being well salaried and forgetting who they’re talking to! God forgive them!
Let’s imagine that the average man or woman works and commutes 10 hours a day five days a week (leaving aside or now family relationships and work at home) and let’s suppose we were fools enough to say that has nothing to do with serving God. Let’s suppose we did that with the salaried minister (evangelist?)—his first 10 hours a day don’t register on the God’s service list so now he has only come up level with the members who are paying his salary. Imagine him then speaking to his congregation and telling them they need to become more involved in the work of the Lord. Especially in the matter of outreach so that the assembly can grow. What if we told these evangelists (?) your first 10 hours a day don’t count, nor do the other hours spent with family? Your doing the “work of the Lord” only counts after the first 10 hours a day. What if we said to the local preacher, “Let’s see you work 10 hours a day and then get involved in outreach after that.”? How would that go over?
So, should we encourage these non-preacher members to shrug off the truth about who we Christians are? Should we discourage their gospeling to the as-yet unforgiven? Heaven forbid! But are they not already engaged in it? Have they not been engaged in it over the years?
Maybe if our salaried teachers (evangelists?) would evangelize or if they’re salaried “teachers” and not evangelists teach us of the wonder of God and who we are in Him, maybe if we were constantly fed with sound doctrine about GOD, His nature, character, purpose and promises even older and tired people, maybe even younger people who spend a minimum of 40 hours a week + traveling to and fro to provide for their families as God has called them to do (1 Timothy 5:8), perhaps working mothers with children that require lots of attention might be able to shrug off or at least resist their weariness and have the energy and boldness to speak about their Blessed Lord & Savior to the as-yet unforgiven the way the salaried ministers (evangelists?) should be doing. Religious lecturing isn’t gospeling.
I think I understand that there’s more to my faithful service to God than paying a preacher a salary. Yes, I think I’ve got straight. But I confess I’m weary of hearing what I hear from so many pulpits. I’m weary too for our people and wonder how they stay alive on what’s dished out to them. The newest theological fashion, the endless explaining of what that verse means and why we must get it right and how others are getting it wrong and the steady—maybe incessant call, “We must do better, we must all work to make this congregation grow.” The Church of God can only continue to live because the Spirit of the Father & the Son dwell within it. Exactly how that works I don’t know but it’s got to be more than what I’m hearing.
Maybe our teachers/exhorters should look at these faith-filled and faithful people, thank God, thank them, speak comfort, peace and vibrant hope to the older ones as they approach the end of their race and then get on with making full proof of their own “outreach” ministry that without the constant support and prayers of the people they address would never have begun much less continue.

(Oh God! Sigh. We thank You for this assuring indisputable truth: that You are the foundation on which Your Church is built and that we don’t carry You but rather that You carry us. In the Lord Jesus and by His Spirit this prayer.)