When Overthinking Sets In
Gladly surrender all your worries, problems, and troubles in the hands that bled for you. Have faith for He is in charge over everything. Always remember that our Father perfectly knows what’s best for us; that our Father perfectly loves us and wants to give what’s best for us; that our Father is sovereign and has the power to give what’s best for us.
Lately, I have been struggling with overthinking. There are nights when I cannot sleep easily because I am just overthinking problems and contemplating solutions to solve them. It is okay to ask God for wisdom and guidance over our problems and grant us the light we need so that we know the path we ought to take in light of the darkness that we are in. But there are times when I try to put matters in my own hands as if I am the one who can fully and finally solve my problems; as if I am the one who knows it all; as if I am the one who can work with all my might to be able to surpass whatever obstacles I would have in this life.
That is why there are times when overthinking becomes sinful when we try to replace the throne of God in handling and solving our problems.
Related Posts:
You Might also like
-
Reasons to Oppose Background Checks in the PCA
As Martin Luther and the Reformers held (and died for), only the Word of God can bind the consciences of believers. Church councils and church decrees (including the Book of Church Order) can and do err. We do not submit to our brethren when they require us to act against our consciences as informed by Scripture. Requiring a person to undergo a legal background check in attempt to judge his spiritual character is indeed binding the conscience improperly.
The 51st General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), meeting in June 2024, will consider five overtures (amendments to the Book of Church Order) that will require background checks for ordained church leaders. Some PCA churches have already adopted this practice to screen support staff and other volunteers. However, I believe “requiring” background checks for elders and deacons is both unwise and unbiblical, for the following reasons.
Background checks do not indicate a man’s Christian character or fitness for ministry.
All five presbyteries (Missouri, Ohio, South Texas, Susquehanna Valley, and Warrior) in their overtures appeal to the elder and deacon requirements in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 in support of mandatory background checks. However, the qualifications for ordained office in these texts are spiritual and moral, not legal. Background checks do not reveal a man’s present moral character, spiritual maturity, or Christian commitment. They only indicate if he has felony or misdemeanor convictions or court actions in his past. It is the responsibility of the church through its Sessions and Presbyteries to determine if an elder or deacon candidate has the character in line with 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1.
To illustrate this, say “John” is an elder candidate in his church. His Session conducts the mandated background check and finds a misdemeanor conviction for marijuana possession from seven years ago, before he was a member of his church. Prior to joining his present church, John repented, sought counseling for his sinful habit, and has not used any drugs since. The background check will not indicate if he is above reproach, sober minded, self-controlled, and able to teach, which are spiritual qualities. It will not speak to his Christian character or his present fitness to serve as an elder. In fact, it may prejudice his Session against him simply because he has a legal conviction in his past. If one argues that John is not above reproach because of his past, then we must concede that the Apostle Paul was not above reproach and could be disqualified from ministry in the PCA.The use of background checks can lead to entanglement with the civil magistrate in approving ordained leaders.
The consequence of background checks is clear: the civil magistrate becomes involved in the church’s vetting of elders and deacons. Proponents will argue that the state does not approve or deny ordination. This is true; however, the civil magistrate, who bears the sword, must be separate from the church, whose authority is only spiritual. If the PCA implements mandatory background checks, the church must necessarily involve the magistrate, however indirectly, in the ordination of leaders.
Rationale given for mandatory background checks is tenuous, at best.
Ohio Presbytery’s rationale for mandatory background checks is the most extensive, and several of their points invite a response. Their overture first gives the moral character argument:
It is, therefore, clear from the recent debates and votes that the presbyteries of the PCA desire more reflection on the moral character of candidates’ ministries. Background checks are consistent with the recent emphasis on moral character within the PCA and its officers. (Ohio Presbytery Overture p. 3, Lines 32-34)
A legal background check, as I have argued above, is not a judge of a man’s moral character, present spiritual maturity, or his adherence to the biblical leadership requirements.
Ohio Presbytery cites the PCA’s Ad Interim Committee on Domestic Abuse and Sexual Assault:
“Background checks, social media checks, and careful reference checks should be used to screen for abusive leadership” (ibid., 1183). (p. 2, Lines 41-42)
What is not explained is how a legal background check will warn if a ministry candidate has the potential for “abusive leadership,” which is a nebulous concept and difficult to define. Legal actions in a person’s past do not necessarily demonstrate how he will lead the church as an elder or deacon. A background check would not reveal vague and ill-defined concepts such as “spiritual abuse” or “emotional abuse”. I would again use the example of the Apostle Paul, whose hypothetical background check and reference checks would not speak to his calling or gifts as an apostle.
Ohio Presbytery attempts to give a common grace argument in support of their position:
Further, the concept of “extra-biblical” in the objections [to background checks] is not properly defined or defended in the reasoning given by the Overtures Committee of the 50th General Assembly. For instance, neither examination in church history nor the Book of Church Order are required by a clear scriptural command; nonetheless they are requirements for ordination, along with many other things that are not explicitly named in Scripture (BCO 21-4.c; 24-1)…In particular, we confess “there are some circumstances concerning the … government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence” (WCF 1.6) (p. 3, Lines 37-45)
This line of reasoning is weak at best. Examinations in church history or the BCO do not touch on a person’s legal past, nor does failing these exams have any legal consequence, as could the results of a background check. Further, churches may take many actions that are permissible or expedient; it does not mean such actions are Biblically wise or appropriate.
Ohio Presbytery includes what could be construed as a veiled threat:
If approved by the General Assembly and Presbyteries as a desired application of Scriptural principles, [mandated background checks] would be capable of binding the conscience of officers (PP 1) who “promise subjection to your brethren in the Lord” (BCO 21-5; 24-6). (p. 4, Lines 14-16)
I am amazed that a PCA presbytery could be so ignorant of both the doctrine of Scripture and church history. As Martin Luther and the Reformers held (and died for), only the Word of God can bind the consciences of believers. Church councils and church decrees (including the Book of Church Order) can and do err. We do not submit to our brethren when they require us to act against our consciences as informed by Scripture. Requiring a person to undergo a legal background check in attempt to judge his spiritual character is indeed binding the conscience improperly.
Despite Ohio Presbytery’s claim to the contrary (p. 4, lines 5-6), mandating background checks is most certainly the church’s attempt to please both the world and the State. Is there data showing a massive influx of pedophiles, rapists, drug addicts, spousal abusers, and sex offenders into the ranks of PCA elders and deacons? Emotional and fear-driven arguments about this do not carry weight here. Contending that “this is the world we live in now” is not sufficient; the Church must be distinct from the world. If PCA churches and presbyteries took seriously discipleship and church discipline, if elders led the way in holding Scripture high and applying its principles to their peoples’ lives, then background checks would not and should not be necessary.
The PCA General Assembly and PCA presbyteries should defeat all five overtures to require background checks for ordained leaders, a practice that is both unwise and unbiblical.
Christopher Brown is a teaching elder in the Presbyterian Church in America. He lives in Charleston, South Carolina.
Related Posts: -
Order, Preparation, and the Spirit’s Leading
Believing that God moves in spontaneous ways is not unbiblical or sinful, but I think it has been overemphasized. The Spirit cannot be manipulated or placed under constraints (John 3:8), but a mark of the Spirit is that He works in an orderly fashion through means. He is the third person of the Godhead, meaning that whatever we see of God, we see of His Spirit. And if God is not a God of confusion, then we should expect for Him to most normally work through the orderly means of planning and preparation.
“Could you see how well that guy followed his outline? That dude was clearly in the Spirit!”
No one everHave you ever heard someone say that? I haven’t. Or what about this one? “That dude was really in the Spirit. Did you see how well-practiced the worship team was?” Normally, when you hear of someone being “led by the Spirit,” it is because that person was being spontaneous or bold or animated or loud. And where there is biblical precedence for the Spirit producing spontaneity (Luke 12:11-12) and boldness (Acts 4:31), I want to try to help balance the scales a bit on what “Spirit-led” preaching and worship can look like.
Spirit-Led Preaching
I often hear of preparation and planning for sermons in this way: “You want to prepare and plan your sermon out, but you need to leave room for the Spirit.” As I’ve already said, there is a place for willingness to be acted upon in the moment, but this type of language produces a false dichotomy between prayerful preparation and the Spirit’s leading. I want to push back here. Why is planning seen as non “Spirit-led”? This seems to be precisely the problem in the church at Corinth. They were really “spiritual” and had all kinds of things to prophesy about, but Paul tells them to stop the spontaneity and wait their turn (1 Cor 14:28). In other words, he wanted them to stop and think about it and carefully prophesy in order to help the church.
Read More
Related Posts: -
Allegiance to Jesus Christ Alone
If we could learn something from Paul and his words to Corinth, friends, please don’t pledge your allegiance to one leader alone, however godly and effective he may be. Some leaders plant, some leaders water, and God will give the growth (1 Cor 3:6–9). God spreads his work among many and does not save it all just for one leader. Every true Christian leader simply wants you to see past himself and give glory to God alone.
Human sin will worm its way into our Christian institutions until Jesus glorifies us all. Churches, conventions, fellowships, colleges, universities, seminaries, mission agencies, networks, associations—all of these institutions require people, and people sin from time to time. When they do, their sin brings reproach to Christ and the institutions that bear his name. Some sins are so significant that they threaten to destroy these institutions altogether, something like what beset the Corinthian church in the days of Paul.
Paul dealt with sinful division in the church. In writing to the Corinthians, he introduced the matter with an imperative: “I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment” (1 Cor 1:10). Factions of people were jockeying to follow one Christian leader over another (cf. 1 Cor 1:11–13), so Paul would more narrowly command, “Let no one boast in men” (1 Cor 3:21).
This division brutalized the church with quarreling, jealousy, strife, and pride (1 Cor 1:11; 3:3; 4:6), corrosive elements that Paul feared would destroy the work of God (cf. 1 Cor 3:16–17). Godly people sent word to Paul to ask for help (1 Cor 1:11). The problem was so severe that Paul ended this section of his letter with a threat to come to Corinth wielding his shepherd’s staff, a contrast to coming “with love in a spirit of gentleness” (1 Cor 4:21). Paul deeply desired his spiritual children to follow Jesus Christ, not act as arrogant fools by pledging allegiance to one of his servants (cf. 1 Cor 4:14–20). They were not being “spiritual people” but “merely human,” void of the Spirit of God (1 Cor 3:1, 5). Instead of living according to the gospel and wisdom of God, they were living for the flesh and wisdom of men (cf. 1 Cor 1:26–3:5).
Read More
Related Posts: