Leadership In Your Home and Beyond
Male and female alike, the Bible exalts the importance of the home as our first place of leadership. What does that mean? There is no minimization of how challenging and important the task of loving your spouse is. There is no diminishment of how difficult and important the task of fathering or mothering is.
Who are the most influential leaders in your life? What made them such great leaders?
I fear that our cultural understanding of leadership is going further astray from true leadership. We Americans seem to have a bizarre attraction to two types of leaders: celebrities and powerful communicators with bold, brash opinions. We judge leaders by the size of their platform.
Some time ago I was asked to speak to the Moms Matter group in our church about healthy leadership in the home and beyond. One of the comments made by the leadership team was that many moms believe they “don’t need to be or can’t be a leader because they are just moms.” We can all similarly dismiss ourselves.
If leadership is influence, then every one of us is called to leadership. God has gifted you with influence. God has called and equipped you to influence your family. God has called and equipped you to influence your friends. God has called and equipped you to influence your church.
You are called to lead.
However, the order in which we develop as leaders is essential. We are called to lead our home first and that leadership is intended to cascade outward.
Some are captivated by the possibility of leading “out there.” That can be a holy aspiration. But if we try to lead “out there” before we lead ourselves and our families first, then we have mixed up God’s order of what leadership was designed to be.
The world gets leadership wrong. Our culture judges leadership by the size of the leaders’ platform.
Related Posts:
You Might also like
-
On the Virtues of “Intemperate” Speech
Written by Russell St. John |
Friday, June 9, 2023
Direct, passionate, forthright speech need not include spite, anger, or character assassination. Even Robert’s Rules of Order understands this, allowing good men to differ strongly, and to speak strongly about their differences, so long as they address the measure and not the man.Introduction
The past few years have witnessed an increasing number of accusations of “intemperate” speech on the floor of General Assembly. Often it seems as though the accused stands guilty of little more than expressing an opinion with which the accuser disagrees. Worse yet, a man suffers the accusation of intemperance simply for expressing his opinion as though he actually believes it, using strong words to convey strong convictions. But surely the bar of “intemperate” speech stands higher than this. Should not elders, who love both the flock and the Shepherd, speak with conviction? I want to suggest that in the courts of the Church, devout men ought to state strong convictions strongly, and nothing in our polity precludes men from so doing.
Governing Documents
Would it surprise you to learn that neither the Westminster Standards nor the Book of Church Order nor the Rules of Assembly Operation nor Robert’s Rule of Order use the word “intemperate?” Our BCO does, however, speak of “temperate” speech. BCO 45-5, which discusses Dissents, Protests, and Objections, states: “If a dissent, protest, or objection be couched in temperate language, and be respectful to the court, it shall be recorded.” Noah Webster defines “temperate” as that which is “moderate; not excessive,” or “[c]ool; calm; not marked with passion; not violent,” or “free from ardent passion.”[1] We might then surmise that intemperate speech employs excessive, hot, tempestuous, violent, or ardently passionate language. In other words, intemperate speech lacks self-control, the speaker having surrendered his lips to a flood of emotion over which his character has lost dominion.
But that’s not what we’ve seen on the floor of General Assembly. If anything, we delight in order, speaking with measured reserve, such that courtesy holds sway. And courtesy toward one another ought to mark our gatherings. Robert’s Rules Article 1, Section 7 on “Debate” states: “Speakers must address their remarks to the presiding officer, be courteous in their language and deportment, and avoid all personalities, never alluding to the officers or other members by name, where possible to avoid it, nor to the motives of members.”[2] In other words, a man should address the moderator, refrain from naming other men, avoid imputing motives, and show proper respect to his brothers. I tend to think we do that well.
But does “courteous” speech preclude the use of strong words flowing from strong convictions? By no means. When Robert’s Rules addresses principles for “Decorum in Debate” in Article 7, Section 43, it asserts: “It is not allowable to arraign the motives of a member, but the nature or consequences of a measure may be condemned in strong terms. It is not the man, but the measure, that is the subject of debate.”[3] Again, no speaker should assail a brother or impute to him ill motives. But when a speaker addresses an overture, a policy, or an idea, a point of theology, ecclesiology, or missiology, a report, a document, or some other “measure” properly before the floor, then he possesses every right to speak about it—even to condemn it—in “strong terms.”
Read More
[1] Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language (New York, NY: S. Converse, 1828), no pagination. Republished in Facsimile by the Foundation for American Christian Education, 2004.
[2] Henry M. Robert, Robert’s Rules of Order Revised for Deliberative Assemblies (New York, NY: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1915), 39.
[3] Robert, Robert’s Rules, 180 [emphasis added].Related Posts:
-
A Challenge to the “Spirituality of the Church”
It is my contention that even though the church and state must be separated…the church (whether in pulpit preaching or by synods and councils) still has the obligation to speak to the civil magistrate concerning the enactment of laws that God calls an abomination. Calling out the sins of the civil magistrate is not intermeddling with civil affairs. It is being faithful to our calling as witnesses of God.
The term “spirituality of the church” has become one of those phrases that often stops all further conversation about the relationship between church and state. Few Christians ever question the meaning of the phrase. It assumes that the church should remain silent about all political matters. Although the expression does not appear in any of our confessional standards, it has become a doctrine of Presbyterianism as sacrosanct as any one of the five points of Calvinism. No one is allowed to challenge it without being labeled with a pejorative term. It is my contention that rightly understood, it can be a useful phrase, but if contextualized in terms of either dualistic Greek thought, or in terms of present-day secular pluralism, it is not only faulty, but also dangerous to both the church and the civil government.
If the spirituality of the church is interpreted in terms of Greek dualism, then it assumes that the spiritual is the higher good and that the physical is the source of evil. The goal of mankind is to escape the physical (this world) and rise into another realm of spirituality where the pains caused by this present world will disappear. The Church is heavenly and therefore good. The Civil Magistrate is earthly, and therefore the root of evil. The goal of the Christian is to escape living in this world. From this perspective the concept of the spirituality of the church is more Neo-platonic than it is Christian.
If the spirituality of the church means that the church must not speak to political issues because we live in a pluralistic society, and we must not impose our views on others, then this is not only a faulty view, but a dangerous view. It is an impossibility because some law-system derived from some religion will always reign in any society. Silence by Christian leadership when sin is legalized by law, even in a so-called pluralistic society, is a dereliction of duty. It lets evil run wild without rebuke, and therefore will bring judgment on both the civil magistrate and the church. It may be worse than Greek dualism. R2K theologians believe that the civil sphere should be ruled by natural law, but since homosexuality and transgenderism are now considered natural, this approach is bankrupt.
If the spirituality of the church means that there are two realms ordained by God and they must remain separate, then this view is biblical. If it means that the civil magistrate has been given the power of the sword to punish evil, and the church has been given the Holy Spirit to empower her to preach the word of God, to administer the sacraments, to pray, and to carry out church discipline (the ordinary means of grace), then it is a legitimate way to speak of the spirituality of the church. Both realms have separate powers and limitations on that power. The church is not to make laws for the body politic, no more than the civil magistrate is to make laws for the church.The politics of the Civil War in the United States in the 19th century drove the southern church into a hidden cave where she thought she should retreat and rest in peace at a distance far from political issues. It is very dangerous to take sides in the middle of a war. Getting the elect into heaven became her primary calling. We still have not recovered from that. Unknowingly, the church became irrelevant to issues that her sheep must face every day in the workplace because of political decisions. The spirituality of the church still holds a powerful grip on neo-puritans.
The most powerful defense of the spirituality of the church is often proffered by reference to the Westminster Confession of Faith in Chapter 31.IV where it says that “synods and councils are to handle, or conclude nothing, but that which is ecclesiastical; and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the commonwealth, unless by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary; or by way of advice, for satisfaction of conscience, if they are thereunto required by the civil magistrate.” Generally, this is quoted as the final appeal in any debate on the spirituality of the church.
However, it is my contention that even though the church and state must be separated in terms as outlined in #3 above, the church (whether in pulpit preaching or by synods and councils) still has the obligation to speak to the civil magistrate concerning the enactment of laws that God calls an abomination. Calling out the sins of the civil magistrate is not intermeddling with civil affairs. It is being faithful to our calling as witnesses of God.
Certain sections of the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms were rewritten and adopted in 1788 by early American Presbyterians. Part of that goal was to update an older view of the relationship between church and state that had existed in England which had permitted the existence of a national church like the Church of England. The new revision also allowed for the freedom of Christian denominations to exist in the various colonies or states.
Too, it should be noted that the justification for adding the First Amendment to the United States Constitution was to avoid a national church at the federal level, and to guard the freedom of the states to establish Christianity as a state religion according to the conscience of the people in each of the various states. Most colonies (and later states) had adopted Christianity as the official religion of those several states. For example, Virginia was Anglican and New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Massachusetts were Congregational.
Although the American version of the Westminster Confession of Faith was changed in several places, our forefathers meeting in Philadelphia in 1789 failed to be consistent and left several sections as they originally appeared in the original edition of 1647. The old way was not totally erased. As such, they left in place the responsibility of the civil government to watch over the church, and the responsibility of the church to call out sin in our civil governments even though it be via humble petition. Note the following quotes from the Westminster Larger Catechism on how we as Presbyterians should view the role of the civil magistrate.
Larger Catechism Question #108 asks the question “What are the duties required in the second commandment?” The answer contains the following: The duties are “disapproving, detesting, and opposing all false worship; and, according to each one’s place and calling, removing it and all monuments of idolatry.” The clear implication here is that a civil magistrate in his place and calling must oppose all false worship by removing it, and any evidence of it, from our body politic.
Larger Catechism #118 asks the question, “Why is the charge of keeping the sabbath more specially directed to governors of families, and other superiors?” The answer is that they as superiors are “bound not only to keep it themselves, but to see that it be observed by all those that are under their charge.” Again, the term “other superiors” includes the civil magistrate.
Larger Catechism #191 asks the question “What do we pray for in the second petition?” The answer says that we are to pray Thy Kingdom Come, and that “the Kingdom of God is to be countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate.” In other words, the work of the church in establishing the Kingdom of God is to be favored and protected by the civil magistrate as the church promulgates the rule of Christ over all the earth.
Politics is a big word that covers everything from political parties, to commerce between states, to the maintenance of highways. To such commonwealth issues, the church need not concern herself. However, if the spirituality of the church means that we cannot speak to the ungodly issues of the day legalized by politicians, then the idea of the spirituality of the church needs to be rejected. If we cannot publicly call out the evil in abortion, in homosexual marriage, and in transgenderism, then we hurt both the church (by refusing to honor God) and we fail in our obligation to call the Civil Magistrate to repent, leaving our nation as potential objects of the wrath of God. The United States was part of Christendom when the American Version of the Westminster Confession was written. Christendom is now dead in this country and we must reevaluate our approach to the civil magistrate.
Modern America is in a pool of despair and wickedness. Christ is her only hope. The times have changed. It is time for preachers along with church synods and councils to speak humbly, but boldly to the politicians of our day. We are not talking about the state administrating the sacraments, or the church supporting a legislative bill to build more interstate highways. We are talking about blatant transgressions of God’s law legislated and mandated by the civil magistrate. It is time for both church bodies and individual preachers to speak to the issues of the day. It is time for those with a large platform to enter the public square with the word of God. It is time to pray for a few bold leaders like John the Baptist who told Herod, “It is not lawful for you to have her [his brother’s wife]” (Mt. 14:4).
Larry E. Ball is a retired minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is now a CPA. He lives in Kingsport, Tenn.
Related Posts: -
The Law of the Lord
Both God’s natural revelation and his special revelation condemn us. They reveal to us our incompatibility as sinners with the holiness of God and the way he designed his universe to operate for his glory. Scripture explicitly teaches us that the payment for sin is death, it reproves and corrects us. It warns us, as David just affirmed in verse 11. It explicitly teaches us that if we confess our sins, Christ is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1 Jn 1:6).
A central doctrine of biblical Christianity is that God has revealed himself, and he has done so in two ways, both of which we can find in the first chapter of Genesis. The opening phrase of Scripture expresses the first form of God’s revelation: “In the beginning God created.” Creation itself is God’s revelation—it is God revealing certain things to us, which is why we sometimes call this God’s Natural Revelation or God’s General Revelation.
But then verse 3 of Genesis 1 expresses the second form of God’s revelation: “And God said.” And again in verses 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, and 26 of Genesis 1, we find God revealing himself through spoken words. And then in verse 28 after he created Adam and Eve, “God blessed them. And God said to them.” And then in Genesis 6:13, “God said to Noah.” And in Genesis 12, “the Lord said to Abram.” And in Exodus 3, God called to Moses out of the burning bush. And later at the foot of Mt. Sinai, God spoke the words of his law to his people. And as Hebrews 1 tells us, “long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son.” So God has revealed himself not only through what he has made, his natural revelation, but also through what he has said, what is sometimes referred to as God’s Special Revelation. And many of these words were written down by holy men as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet 1:21), compiled into the Holy Scriptures, which Paul says “are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus,” these Scriptures being “breathed out by God” (2 Tim 3:15–16).
So God has revealed himself, and he has done so both through his Natural Revelation—what he has made—and through his Special Revelation—what he has said.
Perhaps one of the most succinct and, indeed, beautiful articulations of these two forms of God’s revelation is found in Psalm 19. This psalm describes both God’s natural and special revelation in a strikingly vivid poem. In fact, C. S. Lewis wrote, “I take this to be the greatest poem in the Psalter and one of the greatest lyrics in the world.”
Psalm 19 is unique for a number of reasons, not the least of which is its genre. In the Psalter, we might expect to find songs of praise or even songs of lament, but Psalm 19 is neither of those. In fact, it reads more like a Proverb than it does a psalm, which is why it is often referred to as a wisdom psalm. But another unique characteristic is its focus on God’s revelation, his Torah—Law. These unique features are found in only two other psalms in the entire 150, Psalm 1 and Psalm 119. These three psalms are wisdom psalms that focus on God’s revelation.
And so let’s consider what Psalm 19 says about God’s natural revelation and his special revelation, and then notice what it says about the proper responses we should have to God’s revelation.
God’s Natural Revelation
First, verses 1–6 express God’s natural revelation.
The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
This is the natural created order—heavens, skies, what God has made. And as these opening verses poignantly say, what God has made reveals certain things about him—creation is God’s revelation. It reveals his glory and his handiwork. And not just some of creation, all of creation is God’s revelation; the psalmist uses poetic expressions in verse 2 to communicate this:
Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge.
From morning till evening, day and night, what God has made reveals his glory and handiwork; nature is God’s speech and knowledge revealed to us. As Maltbie Babcock wrote, “This is my Father’s world . . . in the rustling grass I hear him pass; he speaks to me everywhere.”
But I want to stress one point here that I have said several times but that we often take for granted because we say it so often: Nature is God’s revelation. God created the heavens and the earth, and he did so intentionally to reveal himself. Nature is the voice of God. We know this; we affirm this. But I think sometimes, especially in our modern scientific, naturalistic society, we tend to view nature as apart from God, sort of doing its own thing.
No, nature is God’s revelation just like Scripture is, but it does differ from Scripture in a couple key ways, and they are communicated in this psalm.
First, nature reveals God without words. Notice what David says in verse 3:
There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard.
It’s interesting—he just said in verse 2 that “day to day pours out speech,” so nature is God’s speech, but then he says just two phrases later, “there is no speech” in nature. In other words, David is clarifying what kind of revelation nature is. What God created is like speech—it reveals something about him, but it is not exactly speech. It is not actual words. We do not actually hear the audible voice of God in nature. When we sing, “in the rustling grass I hear him pass; he speaks to me everywhere,” we don’t mean that literally. There’s no audible sound or voice.
But that does not make nature any less God’s revelation. It just reveals God in ways other than words. God’s spoken revelation does do some things that his natural revelation cannot, which we’ll look at in a moment. But the fact that nature reveals God without words actually allows it to reveal God to us in ways that words cannot, which leads us to the next point:
God’s natural revelation is universal. That cannot be said for his spoken special revelation—you have to be able to read, or at least listen to Scripture in order to understand what God wants to reveal through Scripture. But what God reveals through what he has made is universal. This is what David communicates in verse 4:
Their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.
There is no place on earth, nor is there any person on earth where God’s natural revelation does not reach—it is universal. In fact, the apostle Paul quotes this verse in Romans 10:18 to argue that Israel has no excuse for rejecting God’s revelation, for
“Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world.”
God’s natural revelation is universal. David uses the image of the sun to picture this beginning at the end of verse 4:
No one can escape the sun; it’s universal.
Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them, and there is nothing hidden from its heat.
The same is true for God’s natural revelation—nothing is hidden from it. Its voice goes out through all the earth, and its words to the end of the world. It is universal, which is why sometimes it is called “general revelation,” meaning it reaches all people in general.
So what then is the nature of this universal, non-verbal revelation from God? Verse 3 says its voice is not heard, but verse 4 says its voice goes out through all the earth. So what is this voice?
Well, the Hebrew word in verse 4 literally means “line,” which is often used of a measuring line, but that doesn’t really make sense in this context. It can also be used for a line of text, like a line of poetry, so that begins to fit a bit better.
But what’s really interesting is how the Greek translators interpreted this word. I mentioned a moment ago that Paul quotes this verse in Romans 10:18, but of course, Paul is writing in Greek, so he’s quoting the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint. And the Septuagint (LXX) uses a Greek word for “voice” that means “musical sound.”
In other words, nature communicates revelation from God to us, not in actual words, but more like music—non-verbal communication of the beauty and order of God. Even ancient secular philosophers believed that music is the public demonstration of the harmony of heaven. They recognized an inherent order to the physical universe; they found that natural principles of physics and acoustics and geometry and astronomy all share an amazing unity and that music was one of the best representations of that unity. They believed that music harmonized the universe; the intervals of music ordered all things, even the planets—they called it the “music of the spheres.” They believed that the universe is characterized by a quality of interrelatedness that is highly evident in music.
And Christian theologians have long agreed with those early philosophers and considered music to be a particularly powerful expression of the order and harmony of heaven. One of the earliest theologians of the church, Augustine, defined music as “the art of the well-ordered.” God created the universe with an orderliness that displays his glory and handiwork universally to all people.
Natural Revelation is the music of God, a display of his nature and the order of what he has made, and because it is not dependent upon words, natural revelation is universal. What music communicates is not limited to one group of people like spoken language is; music communicates at a natural level universally because it is part of God’s created order, and this is what all nature does—it communicates naturally to all people regardless of language, ethnicity, or culture.
Paul highlights this universal power of general revelation in Romans 1 when he says,
19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
Read More