Cedo Nulli: The Minister and His Master
True ministers yield to none because they answer to One. Like Paul they can say “do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ…(Galatians 1:10). True ministers are men who count it a very small thing to be judged of men for “he that judgeth me is the Lord (1 Corinthians 4:4).”
The first business of the Minister of the gospel is to honour his Master. After all, the minister has been appointed by God. He is an under shepherd. The Master is Jesus. The Lord of the house is Jesus. The church, then, is His house not the minister’s house. There is One King; and so the servant—or pastor—who has been given charge over the church must concern himself first and foremost with honouring his Master.
When the preacher is sorting out what to preach or write you don’t want him consulting man. You don’t want him taking polls from the congregation, or consulting with the lusts of his own flesh. You want him alone in the place of prayer—Bible open—consulting God.
Everything He does is first for the Lord Jesus. Everything is to honour Him. He preaches to get glory and praise for Christ. He rules and governs and labours and serves to bring glory to God. Popularity, the praise of man, and the favour of the world, are all as nothing to him… he courts the praise of but One.
He lives for an audience of but One. He answers to One.
There is something about Moses coming down from the mount to speak to the people that should be found in every minister—we are to be men who come from the mount of communion with God to speak to men. We are messengers…our whole reason for being as ministers is to labour for the honour of Jesus Christ. And so while it may not be considered diplomatic or politically correct or even prudent to speak (or write) of this thing or the other thing, we will speak it anyway. We will preach the whole counsel of God and hold nothing back.
Related Posts:
You Might also like
-
The Structure of Romans 3:9–20 and Its Use of the Old Testament
Paul claims that all are under sin (Romans 3:9) and uses a number of biblical quotations to show the unrighteousness and irreverence of man (Romans 3:10a, 18), giving further explanation of his sinfulness and examples of his sin (Romans 3:10b–17). Addressing the Jews in particular (cf. Romans 2:17, “if you call yourself a Jew”), Paul clarifies that they are the audience of the Law and identifies its purpose (Romans 3:19–20).
Romans 3:9–20 concludes Paul’s discussion of man’s unrighteousness in Romans 1:18–3:20.
Paul clearly asserts that both “all, Jews and Greeks [Gentiles], are under sin,” that is, under its power, made obvious man’s many sins (Romans 3:9; cf. 3:13–17). “As it is written” then introduces a number of biblical quotations to show the universal sinfulness of man (Romans 3:10).
Romans 3:10–12 quotes much of Psalm 14:1–3 (almost identical to Psalm 53:1–3). Paul claims as David did that “none is righteous” before God (Romans 3:10; notice Paul’s modification from Psalm 14:1, “There is none who does good”). One could literally translate this phrase, “There is no righteous one,” just as Romans 3:18 could translate, “There is no fear of God.” These two instances of “there is” act as bookends for Romans 3:10–18. Romans 3:19–20 then closes all of Romans 1:18–3:20.
As evidence of man’s unrighteousness claimed in Romans 3:10, the quote from Psalm 14 stack the negatives against mankind—no one understands, seeks for God, or does good but rather turns aside and becomes worthless (Romans 3:10–12; cf. Psalm 14:1–3).
Read More
Related Posts: -
Where is the Good News? An Honest Look at the Civil Rights Movement and the Black Community
Did the Civil Rights Movement fail the black community? Again, that’s a complicated question, but the truth is it was never designed to succeed in such a monumental task. By contrast, the gospel never fails, and should be central to our believing, our living.
Some have questioned if evangelicals—especially white evangelicals—did anything to aid the cause of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s. Most ardent in this question has been someone like Curtis J. Evans, who has charged, “Although they explicitly condemned racism in many of their public writings, [Evangelicals] did not support the tactics employed by civil rights leaders to end discrimination against black Americans. Evangelicals constantly criticized civil rights marches and legislation.”[1]
By Evans’s estimation, evangelicals did not do anything to help the Black community during the Civil Rights Movement, and as a result, there remains a rift in the American church. Truly, that discussion is worth having, but it stands on an underlying assumption—namely, that the Civil Rights Movement is what gave the Black Church, and by extension the Black community, all they were looking to gain. But is that so? It’s a question worth considering.
In what follows, I want to challenge this assumption and leave an open-ended question about the enduring impact of the Civil Rights Movement.
To Move Forward, We Must Look Back
The journey to equality for blacks in America has a long and treacherous history. Today, some argue that blacks are nowhere near the end of that journey and much more needs to be done. For them, a new wave of promise comes through “social justice,” a justice brought about by the allure of new governmental laws, economic justice, and racial equity. Still, others embrace the progress made, holding the belief that there’s nothing more to be done.
An honest look at the history of the Civil Rights Movement can be helpful in assessing where it has come from and what’s needed to move forward.
In North America, the disconnect between “all men are created equal” in the Declaration of Independence sharply contrasted with the regular practice of slavery. This tension would ultimately culminate in the American Civil War: then the Emancipation Proclamation, the 13th Amendment (which ended slavery), the 14th Amendment (which gave citizens rights), and the 15th Amendment (which gave all men the right to vote)—and this was just the beginning.
Still, there were several impediments to equal treatment. Long after the Constitutional Amendments, many southern states subjected their black citizens to segregation and racial discrimination. Southern states passed laws that marginalized black people. This treatment would come in many forms, such as peonage, black codes, and Jim Crow laws. As a result, a new front had to be set up on the road to equality.
The Civil Rights Movement
Along the journey, Rosa Parks, a black seamstress, during an act of civil disobedience, was arrested in Montgomery, Alabama, on December 1, 1955, for violating a draconian Jim Crow law. Ms. Parks sat on the front row of the “colored section” of the bus, which was established to separate black and white commuters. Ms. Park refused to give up her seat to a white passenger when ordered to do so, and the result was the flame that ignited the Montgomery Bus Boycott of 1955.
This flame was the result of the coordinated effort of the Montgomery Improvement Association (MIA) led by Martin Luther King, Jr. The MIA consisted of black ministers and community leaders committed to bringing national attention to racial segregation in the South.
Seventy percent of the Montgomery Bus System’s patrons were black. During the boycott, blacks refused to get on a bus until the buses were desegregated. The city of Montgomery lost between 30 and 40 thousand bus fares each day during the boycott. Financial records suggest the city lost $3,000 daily (which equates to $31,326 per day in 2022).
Rather than paying fares to the city, consumers paid for a one-of-a-kind mode of transportation within their own community. Black commuters needing to get to work found a lift from someone else in the neighborhood and paid the fare to another black community member. The effect on the black economy was huge because the money spent on transportation was either saved or spent in the community.
The United States Supreme Court decision in Browder v. Gayle would end discrimination on public buses. After a 382-day boycott, black patrons received what they fought for: a desegregated bus. It was a victory in one sense, but ironically it led to the first of many miscarriages of justice caused by a movement committed to seeking justice. Although the movement gained an equal seat on the bus—this “victory” would witness black people abandoning the first-of-its-kind Uber car service and returning to the buses that despised their patronage.
The “success” of the Montgomery Bus Boycott would catapult Martin Luther King, Jr., onto the national stage while simultaneously cementing white superiority—through dependence on a white bus system—in the minds of blacks.
The message sent and received by the civil rights leaders was that equality meant sitting on the same bus, using the same bathroom, and eating at the same lunch counter as whites. More neglected was economic empowerment brought about by being self-sufficient. So, the message of self-sufficiency and entrepreneurship was lacking from the movement. The result of this failure would invite the need for greater political power. Yet again, the voices who spoke most loudly among black leaders also handed over the black community to any political party that would validate them through proximity to whites.
The Civil Rights Movement and its leaders successfully tied the advancement of the black community to the shifting political winds by largely abandoning economic self-sufficiency and embracing political power as the path forward. While this reality may not have been apparent to civil rights leaders initially, certain politicians saw it clearly and used political favors to obtain the power they needed from the black community.
Read More
Related Posts: -
The Decline of the Book & the Fall of Western Civilization
A book can almost have a personality. It was written by somebody, and it is about something. Neither of these things can be said of a Kindle, or a Nook, or an iPad. They are not written at all and are not about anything. After libraries have all closed down or become free computer centers, there will still be people like me, feeling like monks in monasteries preserving books in their own private libraries.
There was the Great Flood. There were the Ten Plagues of Egypt. There was the Fall of Rome. There was the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem and the Fall of Constantinople. And then this: The Encyclopedia Britannica went out of print.
While the Simpsons just celebrated its 500th show, the world’s greatest learned publication couldn’t even make it to its 250th anniversary. Will the last person who even knows what Western civilization is please turn out the lights?
I submit that this is the most significant cultural event of the last fifty years. No. Make that a hundred. The New Dark Ages are upon us.
T. S. Eliot ended his poem, “The Hollow Men,” with the words:
This is the way the world endsThis is the way the world endsThis is the way the world endsNot with a bang, but with a whimper.
The sing-song rhythm of the first three lines evokes a child’s careless playground chant, as if Eliot meant to say that the end of the world would be attended with a general lack of awareness that anything significant was really happening–and that, when it did happen, it might go unremarked or even unnoticed.
If you want proof that our own culture is experiencing this very kind of end, just look at the malaise with which we have greeted the Britannica announcement. Note the general cultural yawn directed toward the announcement that they will be suspending their print edition.
The best anyone could do was to give the glib assurance that there was nothing to worry about, since Britannica will continue in an electronic edition.
If someone important to you died, would you find comfort from being told that he or she would continue on in a digital form? No. Encyclopedia Britannica is dead. We now have only its electronic ghost.
Our cultural landscape is fast becoming welter and waste. Before the barbarian onslaught of the computer, one would go to a place and read a thing. There was a library, and it had books, and one went there to read them. Go into a library now, and look to the right, where there are rows of shelves of books, but no people. Then look to the left, where there are rows and rows of people–sitting at computers.
Soon the shelves will be gone, the books sold, leaving only the people, staring mesmerized at their screens. They won’t even notice that the books have been taken away.
Every technological revolution has its benefits—and its casualties. The invention of writing was itself a technological revolution. In his dialogue Phaedrus, Plato tells a story about the old god Theuth, the inventor of many arts, including arithmetic and geometry. But his greatest discovery, said Plato, “was the use of letters.” He came one day to Thamus, the Egyptian god-king, who dwelt in Thebes. Theuth presented his great invention, writing, to the king. “This,” said Theuth,”will make the Egyptians wiser. It will increase their memory and improve their wit.” But the Egyptian king was not impressed.
“Because these letters are like your own offspring,” he said, “you are blind to their faults. This discovery of yours will only create forgetfulness in the learner’s soul because he will no longer need to use his memory. He will trust to the written characters instead of his memory, and will not remember them himself. These letters of yours may help in reminiscence, but they are not an aid to memory. Your hearers will become, not disciples of the truth, but of a semblance of truth only. They will be hearers of many things, but they will learn nothing.”
Read More
Related Posts: