When necessity is laid upon a man to preach the gospel, the best thing for him to do is to pray to the Lord for continued grace, study the Scriptures for continued knowledge, and depend on the Holy Spirit for continued power. Then, when he enters the pulpit with faithfully studied sermons in hand and heart, his sole task becomes this: To joyfully fulfill the necessity of preaching the gospel!

There is an essential duty that every minister of the gospel is called to do: Preach the gospel. Of course, in a broad sense, every believer is called to proclaim the gospel, defend the gospel, and answer questions about the gospel. As Peter orders Christians in 1 Peter 3:15, “in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,” so all Christians today are to be always ready to proclaim this same gospel to others.
Pastors are not exempt from these things. In fact, it is arguable that a pastor is called to do all these things to an even greater degree than other Christians. But the pastor is called to do one thing with the gospel that other Christians are not called to do: He’s called to preach. This is not something that he ought to boast in himself for doing, nor should he seek the praise of men for it. He must do it, however, diligently and faithfully, for failure is not an option in this calling. As Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 9:16, “For if I preach the gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting. For necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!”
At first glance, this verse may seem strange. Is it a joy to preach the gospel or a burden? A privilege or an imprisonment? How should Paul’s use of the word “necessity” be understood when it comes to preaching the gospel? And, in light of this, what are the traps that pastors may fall into if they boast in themselves for doing what was laid upon them as a necessity? Or, what is the danger for the pastor who fails to do what was a necessity?
The Joy of the Necessity Laid upon the Pastor
To understand what Paul meant when he wrote that a necessity to preach the gospel had been laid upon him, we must first understand that he was in the middle of defending himself against those who were attempting to examine him (1 Cor 9:3). As Paul encountered more than once, there were false prophets—only wolves in sheep’s clothing—whose entire existence was wrapped up in trying to devour the people of God.
By the very nature of Paul’s missionary journeys, he would found churches, install elders, and then move on to the next location. This opened the churches he had founded to the attack of these false prophets in his absence. After all, one of the surest ways to attack the church is to sow discord amongst the flock, especially by casting doubt upon the gospel that Christians have heard preached and which they have received with gladness. But, to cast doubt upon the message, these false prophets knew it was essential they first cast doubt upon the messenger.
So, when he begins to make his defense before his examiners, Paul immediately appeals to his dutiful joy in preaching the gospel itself. At first glance though, the argument he makes seems almost entirely to have to do with receiving compensation for preaching; evidently, when it came to the Corinthians, Paul had never taken any financial remuneration for preaching. This, he says, is evidence of his apostleship and love for the saints there. It’s not that pastors and ministers don’t have the right to receive compensation for their preaching; on the contrary, it is a God-ordained right for the pastor to be compensated, and one which churches ought to seek to uphold for the men who care for them as elders and overseers of the flock. Indeed, “the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel” (1 Cor 9:14). Despite what many even today try to suggest, the clear teaching of Scripture is that churches ought to support their pastors financially, as co-laborers in the gospel (1 Cor 3:9).
But Paul did not make use of this right with the Corinthians. Why? Because, he says, “We endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ” (1 Cor 9:12). Paul saw something in Corinth that made it clear that his accepting remuneration for the gospel would actually hinder the growth of the church there. So, from the Corinthians he accepted nothing, though he did at times receive from other churches. For example, to the Philippians he wrote, “I have received full payment, and more. I am well supplied, having received from Epaphroditus the gifts you sent, a fragrant offering, a sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to God” (Phil 4:18).
But, to the Corinthians, he wrote, “What then is my reward? That in my preaching I may present the gospel free of charge, so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel” (1 Cor 9:18). And, again, “I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings” (1 Cor 9:22–23). We see here, then, what is at the heart of the necessity laid upon pastors. Paul’s great source of joy came through preaching the gospel to others, and so too must pastors find joy in this duty.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Robert A. J. Gagnon |
Monday, June 3, 2024
This is not a month to be “proud” but rather a month to mourn. Mourn the moral rot pervading our country. It has harmed not only the nation as a whole, but especially those who in their self-delusion celebrate what is injurious to themselves, and to their relationship with others and God.

Not only is pride generally a sin, but also there is nothing to be proud of in the so-called “LGBTQ+ Pride Month.” Let us love persons with same-sex attractions and gender-identity dysphoria by rejecting that facet of their existence that dishonors the persons whom God has created in his image.
We should also show sympathy for their struggle with sinful desires, and applaud the way God can use the mortification of such desires to deepen a relationship with himself and others. Yet no one should take pride in such desires or the behavior that follows from gratifying them.

What is there to be proud of?

Why should one take pride in being erotically aroused by the distinctives of one’s own sex, which is either narcissism or self-deception (viz., the failure to apprehend that one is already fully one’s own sex)?
Should people also take pride in being erotically aroused by close kin (incest, i.e., attraction to a kinship same, akin to attraction to a sexual same) or by multiple persons concurrently (which Jesus rejected based on the logic of God’s intentional creation of a sexual binary)?
Why should one take pride in rejecting the messaging of one’s body as designed by God by identifying with a “gender” at odds with one’s biological sex? A complaint against one’s Creator is nothing to be proud of, but rather an expression of idolatry.

Social harm and the condemnation of Scripture

The “queer” lifestyle is one marked by disproportionately high rates for sexually transmitted disease and higher numbers of sex partners (especially for homosexual males), as well as higher relational turnover and increased mental health problems (especially for homosexual females).
These risks correlate with known male-female differences; expected results when an intimate relationship lacks true sexual counterparts or complements. Same-sex unions don’t moderate the extremes of a given sex; they ratchet them up; don’t fill in the gaps, but widen the breach.
Scripture (including Jesus and the apostolic witness to him) views homosexual practice and transgenderism as abhorrent sexual immorality (“abominations”) that can get unrepentant offenders excluded from God’s kingdom. Such behaviors assault the foundation of sexual ethics as defined by Jesus himself, his Scripture, and his apostles.

The dangers of “LGBTQ+” politics

The “LGBTQ+” political agenda is the most illiberal and hateful agenda in politics today. It is characterized by efforts to stifle free speech and the free exercise of religion. It is the greatest threat to these freedoms in the Western world today, and has been for decades.
No political lobby has concentrated more on canceling and censoring others, indoctrinating school children, and even mandating compelled speech (the hallmark of totalitarians).
People’s jobs are being put at risk who dissent from “LGBTQ+” dogma: teachers, doctors, nurses, psychologists, florists, photographers, small business owners, lawyers, corporate executives, etc.
Children are being directed toward chemical castration and mutilation surgery, an obvious instance of child abuse being pushed by the state. Indeed, the state is now moving in the direction of regarding parents who fail to affirm their child’s “LGBTQ+” identity as perpetrating child abuse (we know who the real child abusers are), requiring the state’s intervention to take your own child away from you.
Men identifying falsely as women are invading women’s restrooms, locker rooms, sports, shelters, and prisons, even being celebrated with misogynistic awards declaring them to be better women than real women.
The very idea of faithful Christian education is being put at risk, with calls for tying federal student loans, grants, and accreditation toward lock-step compliance with “LGBTQ+” ideology.

Moral rot and true love

Science is suffering at the hands of a movement that teaches that men too can have periods and give birth. A gnostic spirit pervades the land, declaring entrapment in bodies not designed to express their sexually immoral desires.
This is not a month to be “proud” but rather a month to mourn. Mourn the moral rot pervading our country. It has harmed not only the nation as a whole, but especially those who in their self-delusion celebrate what is injurious to themselves, and to their relationship with others and God.
As Paul told the Corinthians, they should not be “puffed up” or “inflated with pride” over their ability to tolerate an egregious act of sexual immorality (there a case of adult-consensual incest). To support the “queer” life is a manifestation of functional hate, not love.
Therefore, I choose rather to love, to love truly, those who identify as “gay,” “lesbian,” “bisexual,” and “transgender,” rejoicing in the truth rather than in the lie, whatever the cost for doing so.
Source
Related Posts:

Written by Robert A.J. Gagnon |
Tuesday, March 28, 2023
Christians who attend a “gay wedding” should be honest with themselves and announce publicly that they have changed their mind about homosexual practice in key ways that deviate from the only witness of Scripture. They will eventually come to that realization in the not-too-distant-future if they aren’t already putting on a fake mask now.

The question as to whether it is right and loving for a faithful believer in Christ to go to a same-sex “wedding” should be answered from a Christ-centered, biblical perspective. If the reader agrees with that premise, then the moral answer is a relatively easy one: Certainly not.
To be sure, carrying out this answer when invited to a same-sex wedding involving a family member, friend, or employer may create internal disquiet in the faithful Christian. It might lead to a severance of relationship or affect one’s job. Yet Christians are never assured by God that doing what is truly right and loving will never come at a cost. Quite the opposite. I will come back to why it is a scripturally easy answer; but first I want to note the differing opinion of some prominent Evangelicals.
Some Evangelicals Who Answer “Yes” or Allow a “Yes”
Some Evangelical leaders today who claim to accept (or at least once accepted) the scriptural view that homosexual practice is a sin do not see the answer as a certain “No.” Timothy Dalrymple, the CEO and President of Christianity Today, formerly the flagship magazine of Evangelicalism, actually attended a “gay wedding” in 2019, where he engaged in activities that could only be characterized as celebratory. His defense to me was that the employee who invited him was a dear friend to whom Timothy’s attendance meant a lot. So he went, albeit telling his friend that he held to a “traditional view of marriage.” For him it was “a Romans 14 issue,” a decision left to each Christian’s Spirit-led conscience.
Similarly, when addressing whether a Christian can attend a same-sex “wedding,” Focus on the Family called it “a Romans 14 issue” and cited Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman in John 4 as an example of how Jesus “scandalously overleapt all of the social barriers in order to show His love and concern for her,” but without expressing “approval for her lifestyle or behavior.” It seems that Focus uses John 4 in part to indicate that one could attend a “gay wedding.” Yet nothing in that text suggests that Jesus would have attended an immoral wedding ceremony, least of all one celebrating a woman being married to another woman.
Preston Sprinkle, a biblical scholar who heads up his Center for Faith, Sexuality & Gender, thinks that saying “yes” to an invitation to attend a “gay wedding” is one of the options that “can be faithful to the biblical view that marriage is between two sexually different persons—as long as you don’t send mixed signals to the couple getting married.” He too appeals to Romans 14. He even advises parents to attend their child’s “gay wedding” lest they be shut out of their child’s life forever (and grandkids!) and miss an “opportunity to embody Christ’s love in your son/daughter’s life.” This is responding to the child’s manipulation and extortion to do evil, setting a pattern that will eventually lead to de facto, if not explicit, acceptance of the child’s immoral actions.
Megachurch pastor Andy Stanley is reported by one pastor as saying at a meeting with pastors (corroborated by other pastors present), “I don’t do gay weddings, but I can’t say I would never do a gay wedding. . . . If my granddaughter asked me someday, maybe I would” (also this). However, these are probably not the words of a Christian pastor who still believes homosexual unions to be sinful. Stanley, who has been drifting toward acceptance of homosexual unions for at least a decade, employs counselors like Debbie Causey who direct Christians struggling with same-sex attraction to ministries that affirm homosexual practice.
Not “a Romans 14 Issue” as the Analogue of Incest in 1 Corinthians 5 Shows
Attending a “gay wedding” is not “a Romans 14 issue” where believers can agree to disagree over matters of indifference like eating meat or not, which do not determine entrance into the kingdom of God (Rom. 14:17). Those who think otherwise either have difficulty reasoning analogically on this matter or else have departed in some way from the scriptural view of homosexual practice. They use arguments like wanting to stay in relationship with a “gay” family member or friend; imitating Jesus’ practice of eating with sinners; or comparing attending a “gay wedding” to attending a wedding of a divorced believer.
All these arguments can easily be seen as wanting if one compares attending a “gay wedding” to its most appropriate analogue: Attending an incestuous wedding between consenting adults “committed” to one another—for example, a man and his mother, or a woman and her brother. There may even be a “genetic sexual attraction” between close kin who are reunited late in life (see also this, this, this, and this). Incestuous unions are comparable to homosexual unions in terms of degree of severity (though from a biblical perspective homosexual practice is even worse) and problematic aspect (sex with another who is too much of an embodied same, whether as regards kinship or gender).
Paul’s response to the incestuous man in 1 Corinthians 5 gives us a good indication of what Paul’s response to attending a “gay wedding” would have been. True, Paul doesn’t mention that the self-professed Christian man who is in a sexual relationship with his stepmother is getting married to his stepmother. Yet, given Paul’s overall reaction to the situation, it is historically absurd to contend that Paul would have given his consent to their attendance of such an incestuous wedding, had it been requested.
The Corinthian response of being “puffed up,” inflated with pride, at their ability to tolerate an incestuous relationship, certainly made matters worse. That does not mean, though, that had they made clear to the incestuous man their disapproval of the relationship, Paul would have approved their attendance of a wedding between the two.
Paul insists rather that the Corinthian believers should “mourn” his actions, because it puts the offender at high risk of exclusion from God’s kingdom (1 Cor. 6:9–10). One mourns at a funeral. A person cannot go to a wedding mourning, since the entire point of the event is to celebrate the rendering permanent of the union. Marriage involves a commitment to stay in the union permanently. In this case, the parties would be declaring their intent to sin egregiously as long as they live, and celebrating that declaration. A believer can’t attend such a ceremony.
Indeed, Paul recommends that the Corinthians put the incestuous man, who “calls himself a brother [i.e. a believer],” out of the community (“remove from your midst the one who did/does this deed”), to cease “associating with” him, “not even to eat with such a one” (1 Cor. 5:2, 11). Obviously, such injunctions preclude something much worse: Going to the wedding of a man celebrating the grave immorality of incest. Going to a wedding that celebrates a gravely immoral union would be comparable to going to a ritual celebrating a person’s suicide or self-immolation.
Paul’s Act of Love in the Face of Today’s Excuse to Stay in Relationship
Paul’s actions may seem harsh, but Paul’s hope was to yet save the offender’s “spirit . . . on the day of the Lord” (1 Cor. 5:5). Paul’s actions are remedial, not punitive. The offender needs a massive wake-up call; otherwise, he is heading to hell in a hand basket. He does not need further accommodations to his death-inducing immorality by the church. Paul wants the incest to have stopped yesterday, for the sake of the offender (whom he seeks to reclaim), for the sake of the community (whose accommodations to immorality are threatening their existence), and for the sake of God (who expended the ultimate cost to redeem them, the atoning death of his Son).
We should bear in mind that this is the same Paul who wrote in marvelous praise of love just eight chapters later in the same letter. Paul did not violate that praise in the actions that he took toward the incestuous man.
To claim that Paul gives us no advice as to whether a believer can attend an incestuous wedding, making it “a Romans 14 issue,” would be historically ridiculous. Paul’s remarks in 1 Corinthians 5 make crystal clear that there is no way that he would have condoned attendance at such a celebration of immorality. Try any of the arguments that some Christians use to justify attendance at a “gay wedding” and see if they work well for an incestuous “wedding.” For example:
“It is better to go to an incestuous wedding and stay in a relationship with a person who wants to marry a parent or sibling than it is to not go and thereby cut oneself off from future opportunities to witness to Christ.” Do you think such an argument would pass muster for Paul, much less for Jesus? Attending an incestuous wedding communicates acceptance even if you tell your incestuous friend that you do not approve of incestuous unions.
Read More
Related Posts: