Those who promote themselves without God’s authorization (i.e., recognition granted to them by the church – see Acts 13:1–3), gain position by giving it to themselves or taking it from others. Instead of waiting on the Lord to receive a ministry at the right time in the right way, those who are committed to making themselves great are unconcerned for how their ministry might impact others. They see a path to service and the popularity found from others is sufficient cause for continuing.

Throughout the Bible we find a divide between wisdom and folly, righteousness and sin, givers and takers, children of God and children of the devil. As Jesus said, he did not come to bring peace, but a sword (Matt. 10:34–35). And that sword not only divides humanity, which provides the context of his words in Matthew’s Gospel, it is also a sword that judges the thoughts and intentions of men. Indeed, God’s Word does more than declare behavior right and wrong; it does surgery on the heart, exposing why we do what we do.
In the Bible, and in the church, few things are more difficult to discern than motivations for ministry. For truly, as many good motivations as there are, there are also bad motivations. There is ambition that is godly and ambition that is anything but godly. And in every child of God who serves faithfully, there will be both impulses.
Just consider the Apostle Peter, who could confess Jesus as the Christ at the same time that he would deny him his cross (see Matt. 16:13–23). Indeed, at one time or another, all the disciples had a mixture of true and false ambitions, which is why Jesus had to correct their views on greatness (Mark 10:42–45). Truly, we are fickle creatures. And the best of men is both taught by God and tempted by the devil. Again, read Matthew 16.
So, knowing that, we should always be open to examining our motivations for ministries, and that is what this series is about. It aims to address false ambitions and to set a course towards true ambitions for ministry.
In Part 1, I offered two lessons from the life of Adonijah.

We should not seek positions in ministry; we should seek the righteousness to receive such a place of service.
We should abide by the word, and wait for an invitation to serve.

And now, in Part 2, I will suggest a third lesson from Adonijah’s life:

When kingdom-seekers exalt themselves, their ambition follows a discernible pattern.

This pattern consists of five actions that Adonijah pursued in his attempt to be king in Israel. And, as the story goes, he nearly succeeded. What ultimately prevented him from claiming the throne illicitly is that genuine servants of God stood to oppose him. His false ambitions were thwarted because the ambitions of others were rooted in God’s Word.
Sadly, this sort of conflict continues today.
In truth, only when righteous men and women stand against falsehood will truth prevail. Yet, this is exactly why it is vital to learn the pattern of those who exalt themselves. For in ministry, when good works are pursued with bad motives, it can be very difficult to discern. Often, the falsehood of good works takes years, even decades, to discern. Yet, Scripture does give us light, if we are willing to look. And that is what we find in Adonijah’s play for David’s throne.
Adonijah’s Ambition
When Adonijah exalted himself to a position of royal authority, he followed a pattern of action that many have followed before and since. Indeed, this pattern of self-exaltation is the exact opposite of Christ’s self-effacing, self-sacrificing service (see Phil. 2:5–8). Instead of humbling himself and waiting to be exalted, Adonijah used his resources to collect a following. And then, he attempted to build a kingdom with his followers. From his sinful example, we are warned of an ambitious nature that seeks ministry by means of self-promotion.
Now, of course, the pursuit of gospel ministry does not look like glory-seeking for most people. Yet, among those who worship in David’s rebuilt house (i.e., the church), there remains a temptation to self-exaltation. And tragically, those most skilled for ministry are most easily tempted. As with any good thing, it can become a god-thing (an idol). And that is one of the warnings that the story of Adonijah offers. For those seeking ministry and for anyone who might encounter someone promoting themselves in ministry. (And I would put myself in the camp of those who have had to learn to put selfish ambitions to death.)
Indeed, self-promotion is often covered by words of truth and acts of service. As a result, recognition of such self-serving can be missed or dismissed. Even more, many in the church can be deceived by zealous “servants” who exalt themselves with their service in ministry. This pattern of selfish ambition in God’s kingdom is not easily spotted, but it does have certain discernible patterns. For nothing is new under the sun, and in Adonijah we can see at least five steps to such self-promotion.
By examining his life, may we learn to seek new life in Christ.
Five Steps of Self-Promotion
1. Self-actualization.
In Adonijah’s case, he not only exalted himself, he vowed to himself, “I will be king” (v. 5).
The power of a self-made man is in his secret vow to do great things. In truth, not everyone who achieves great things is self-seeking, but many are. And when they are, they are often driven by some inward compulsion.
That compulsion may come from any number of family situations (e.g., the absence of a father, the neglect of a mother, competition with a sibling), or it may come from somewhere else. But wherever it comes from, the need to actualize self is not a godly motivation to serve from a heart overflowing with God’s love. It is profoundly human motivation, one that comes from a heart needing to find love or praise or glory from others.
And thus, the first step of self-promotion is a subterranean urge to be great. This urge may come forth viscerally in verbal statements marked by pride, competition, envy, or self-glorification. Or, it may be more subtle. It may be hidden and only seen in promises made to self or hidden in a diary.
Read More
Related Posts:

Job has just found out in repeated hammer blows of bad news that all of his wealth is gone and his family is no more. He tore his robe and shaved his head in grief. However, did he curse or blame God? He recognized that God allowed it to happen and that God is sovereign and within His rights to do this. He cried out, “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return.” This is recognition that possessions are not our substance. He also recognized that all he had came from God, belonged to God, and God had the right to take it away. Job does proclaim that this trial was of God, but the passage says that it was not a sin for him to say that. God does allow suffering into the lives of His people to accomplish His purposes.

12 Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial among you, which comes upon you for your testing, as though some strange thing were happening to you. 13 But to the degree you are sharing the sufferings of Christ, keep on rejoicing, so that also at the revelation of His glory you may rejoice with exultation. 14 If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you. 15 Make sure that none of you suffers as a murderer, or thief, or evildoer, or a troublesome meddler; 16 but if anyone suffers as a Christian, he is not to be put to shame, but is to glorify God in this name. 17 For it is time for judgment to begin with the house of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God? 18 AND IF IT IS WITH DIFFICULTY THAT THE RIGHTEOUS IS SAVED, WHAT WILL BECOME OF THE GODLESS MAN AND THE SINNER? 19 Therefore, those also who suffer according to the will of God must entrust their souls to a faithful Creator in doing good.1 Peter 4:12-19 (LSB)
When John Piper was diagnosed with Prostate Cancer in December 2005, he preached a wonderful sermon about prayer then he wrote an open letter posted on his web site. The letter was titled Don’t Waste Your Cancer. The sermon really got hold of me about the condition of my prayer life. Then I read that letter and was ashamed at how I was handling my little bit of suffering at that time.
The letter’s message was this, when we suffer, we must not waste the gift of a spiritual growth opportunity God has given us. Yes, that is right. Suffering is a gift from God that is a fantastic Spiritual growth opportunity. I posted links to both the sermon and the letter on my old blog. I had many other bloggers link to them and they received many comments. One of them stands out.
One man got very angry. He said that Piper must have a death wish or something. He thought it was crazy for anyone to have a positive outlook when it comes to suffering. I was struck at how no matter how well he was answered by me and others about what John Piper meant by his letter, he was obstinate about his resistance to suffering. He told me that I might as well go poison myself if I thought suffering was that great of a deal. In his mind any suffering could not be of God. A loving God would never do that to His children. With that view in mind, let’s look at the next section in Job, which is Job 1:6-22.
6 Now it was the day that the sons of God came to stand before Yahweh, and Satan also came among them. Job 1:6 (LSB)
In your Bible the word translated “LORD” throughout the book of Job is “YHWH”, “the Almighty.” However, I use the LSB Bible, which translates YHWH as Yahweh. Who are the sons of God? Are these Angels? Are they men? I have heard it both ways. I believe, however, that this verse is a description of God’s people coming together to worship God. The sons of God are His children. Who are God’s children? They are those adopted into His family who have been regenerated. These are regenerated believers who have come to worship God just as we do when we worship together in church. Who was with them? Satan was there. Is Satan present in our church services when we are gathering to worship God? Sure he is. Much of his nasty work is done within professing believers isn’t it? Also, Job is probably within these “sons of God” as they worship. He could even be the priest leading the worship.
7 And Yahweh said to Satan, “From where do you come?” Then Satan answered Yahweh and said, “From roaming about on the earth and walking around on it.” 8 Then Yahweh said to Satan, “Have you set your heart upon My servant Job? For there is no one like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, fearing God and turning away from evil.” Job 1:7-8 (LSB)
Satan is not omnipresent nor is he omniscient. God asks Satan from where he and come. He told God that he had been traveling all through the earth. Then God asks Satan an interesting question. He throws Job up into Satan’s face referring to Job’s faithfulness before the Lord. The scene is intriguing. Here we have believers gathered to worship God.
Read More
Related Posts:

Covenant Presbytery took up the Jonesboro matter again; this time with the hope of reconciliation between members of the Jonesboro congregation and the original Session. This is very good news. It would be a wonderful testimony if the Presbytery not only reconciled with the Jonesboro 7, but also with those who left the visible church following the abuse by the original temporary Session largely from IPC Memphis. While the actions of that temporary Session have been nullified by the PCA General Assembly, there are nonetheless lingering personal, relational, and spiritual consequences due to the way judicial process was “abused” by the temporary Session.

Seven heads of households from a PCA church plant in Jonesboro, Arkansas met with their temporary Session. They explained to their elders at that meeting their desire to consider candidates for pastor other than the current church planter (and a member of the temporary Session). The men were shocked by the temporary Session’s response. The temporary Session’s actions would likewise shock and scandalize many from across the PCA. You can read about the travails and vindication of the Jonesboro 7 here: Part One, Part Two, Part Three, Part Four, and Part Five.
The Principle of Non-Intrusion
In the Fall of 1834, wealthy and powerful Lord Kinnoul selected Mr Robert Young to serve as pastor of a Presbyterian congregation in Auchterarder, Scotland of which Lord Kinnoul was the patron. The congregation had the opportunity of sitting under Young’s ministry for a period of time. When the moment came for the congregation to determine whether to approve the man to be their pastor, the congregation decidedly rejected him:
only two individuals, Michael Tod and Peter Clark, could be found to express approbation by signing the call. Five-sixths of the congregation, on the other hand, came forward solemnly to protest against his settlement [installation].1
The congregation requested their patron, Lord Kinnoul, select another man to serve as minister. But Lord Kinnoul refused and took the matter to the civil courts.
On what was very likely a cold day, March 8, 1838 a Scottish court issued a judgment against that Auchterarder congregation, which stated in effect, “in the settlement of pastors, the Church [presbytery] must have no regard to the feelings of the congregation.”
The little congregation appealed, but on May 2, 1839 the appeals court ruled the opinion of the congregation was “considered of no value in any way…” regarding the selection of a pastor.2
There were numerous similar cases in the Scottish Kirk at this time; the civil courts determined regarding the selection of ministers: “No regard was to be paid to any opinions or feelings of the parishioners.”3
But the people of God continued to protest to the Scottish presbyteries, insisting they should have the right of approving a minister. When the church courts refused to heed their pleas, the people vacated the church buildings and formed new congregations; they would not accept a minister forced upon them by the civil government or the presbytery. The intrusion of the government and church courts into the selection of a congregation’s minister is deeply offensive to the principles of biblical church polity.
Thomas Brown summarizes:
During the whole of the Church’s history it had been held that the call of the people was essential before a minister could be settled. The congregation must invite before the Presbytery could ordain. Here were cases, however, one after another, in which the parishioners were virtually unanimous in their opposition to the presentee. Was the call, then, to be treated as a mockery?…Was it to be tolerated that, the members of Christian congregations must submit to have obnoxious presentees forced on them?4
This led to what is called “The Great Disruption” of 1843 in which several hundred ministers departed from the Kirk of Scotland, being committed to the principle that neither the civil government (e.g., an aristocratic patron) nor the church courts may “intrude” upon a congregation’s right to select her own minister. They formed the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland.
This “non-intrusion principle” is now universally accepted as vital to presbyterianism.
The ‘Non-Intrusion Principle’ & the PCA?
The principle underlying the Great Disruption of 1843 is at the core of the PCA’s Book of Church Order (see the article I wrote at PCAPolity.com for more on this). A congregation’s right to select her own minister is nearly absolute. No church court may force a minister upon a congregation without its consent, not even a temporary Session.5
This makes what happened in Jonesboro, Arkansas all the more remarkable and scandalous.
Following that meeting with seven heads of households, the temporary Session (largely comprised of elders from wealthy and influential IPC Memphis) investigated, indicted, and summoned the seven men for trial because they objected to the Session’s preferred course of action: to have one of the Session’s own number considered first for the position of pastor.
During the trial, however, no evidence was presented of the men’s guilt. Nonetheless, IPC Memphis Ruling Elder David Caldwell did testify at trial that he had a feeling the Ninth Commandment was violated by the Jonesboro 7.6 Ordinarily, feelings are not admitted into evidence in the courts of the PCA. But in this case, the PCA General Assembly’s Judicial Commission (SJC) noted the “basic principles of due process” required by the PCA Constitution were violated by that temporary Session.7
RE David Caldwell was later elected to be the Moderator of Covenant Presbytery in 2024. As moderator, his role is to ensure meetings and debate are conducted in accordance with the PCA Constitution.
The temporary Session found the men guilty, censured them, and barred them from the Lord’s Table as well as participation in congregational meetings, which also meant they could not vote on the call of a pastor (as some SJC judges noted during their review of the Session’s actions).
When the men appealed their decision to Covenant Presbytery, the temporary Session resigned and recommended the MNA Committee of Covenant Presbytery close the little church plant in Jonesboro, calling its culture toxic.
What was it that made the congregation toxic? Was it that seven households objected to the man whom the temporary Session – a group of men largely from IPC Memphis who did not live in Jonesboro – wanted to offer to the congregation?8
It is unclear what made the church plant’s culture toxic. But you can imagine the impact that label had on the members of Christ Redeemer PCA church plant in Jonesboro, Arkansas.
Faithful elders across the denomination are working to further perfect and refine our polity in hopes that the abuse of process endured by the Jonesboro 7 and others is not repeated.
The Cost to the Church
The Jonesboro 7 and their families represented upward of 40% of the congregation. The temporary Session understandably did not inform the rest of the congregation of the investigation, indictment, and trial of the Jonesboro 7, yet nonetheless a cloud settled over the congregation for some time as a result.
When the judgment of the temporary Session was finally announced and notice of appeal was given, the little congregation was in utter disarray. You can get a sense of the pain and hurt felt by the congregation at this meeting where some members of the temporary Session explain their decision to resign and recommend the church plant be terminated by Covenant Presbytery.
Indeed, the Jonesboro 7 persevered through the abuse of process by the temporary Session and the erroneous decisions of Covenant Presbytery and were ultimately vindicated by the PCA General Assembly. But not all the members of the church plant persevered through the congregation’s difficulties, which the temporary Session brought upon them.
While the biblical polity of the PCA prevailed and vindicated the Jonesboro 7 against the usurpations by a temporary Session of elders largely from IPC Memphis, there have still been costs.
A number of the church plant’s members and regular attenders were so shocked by the abuse of process and the bad report that was given to Covenant Presbytery by the former members of the Session that they have left the visible church entirely.
Read More
Related Posts: