03.01. I. The Problem Of Appointment

I THE PROBLEM OF APPOINTMENT

PAUL, writing to his junior, Timothy, said: “This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.” (1 Timothy 3:1) The speech of the apostle, like all inspired declarations, will bear careful scrutiny.—“If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work” is not to be translated—“If a man is ambitious to be a preacher, he gives evidence of his fitness for that office.” The reference is not an approval of the individual; it is a commendation of the office instead,—for bishop— overseer or pastor of the flock is “a good work.”

It will be made clear in the course of this series of lectures that this office is not to be approached from the point of personal ambition, with a desire for personal honors or emoluments. If these things come to one in the office they are to appear as fruits of faithfulness, not as coveted objectives.

It is not the purpose of this volume to persuade men to make a choice of the ministry as a life profession; it is our object instead to impart counsel, born of long experience, to the young and immature, who feel it absolutely incumbent upon them to enter the ministerial office. The successive gateways to this God-ordained occupation, as suggested by Scripture and increased by custom, we set in order. THE DIVINE APPOINTMENT In the process of this discussion we shall have occasion again and again to advise against entering the ministry as an occupation, save as one is compelled to do so. This compulsion should take the form of conviction.—The two outstanding ministers of New Testament history are Peter and Paul. Fortunately the record of their respective calls is somewhat complete. In the instance of Peter when, through the influence of his brother, Andrew, he was introduced to Jesus, Jesus said: “Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt he called Cephas, which is by interpretation. A stone.” (John 1:42) In other words, Christ, who knew all things, saw in Simon—a hearkener, the emotional possibilities of a mighty minister, and decided to put His Spirit upon him and so stabilize him as to render him worthy of his new name “Peter—a stone.” The marvels of his ministry, therefore, surprise no one; they were to be expected after such a judgment as Jesus formed and pronounced. In the instance of Saul’s call to the ministry, the record is far more complete. (See Acts 9:1-31); but in the case of both, the divine commission and a personal conviction combined. That is why Paul, writing to the Corinthians, was compelled to say: “Woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!” (1 Corinthians 9:16) Of every true minister it should be said, as was said of Christ’s ministry, “And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.” (Hebrews 5:4)

These are days when men discuss essentials to success in the ministry. Let it never be forgotten, disputed, or even debated, that the first of all essentials is the still small Voice saying to the inner ear, “This is the way; walk ye in it!”

Competence is a prominent evidence of this call.— Paul, writing to Timothy on the subject, reached his climax of essentials in the phrase, “Apt to teach.” (1 Timothy 3:2) Little wonder that in his second epistle to Timothy he repeated this requirement as a sine-quo-non, “Apt to teach” (2 Timothy 2:24); and that upon Titus he should impress the same idea by insisting that one who is thus called should hold “fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gain-sayers.” (Titus 1:9) The late Dr. J. M. Stiffler, an authority on the Gospel ministry, thinks that Titus, as he went from church to church in Crete, was accustomed to ask, with a view to discovering divine appointees to this office, “Who is apt to teach?” and he remarks, ‘Titus went not to prepare a ministry. He went to find one that had already evinced its preparation by its known and acknowledged works.” This essential qualification should be associated with others of importance.—In the ministry, character is a Siamese twin of competence. A bishop must be “blameless, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.” (1 Timothy 3:2-6)

It is hardly necessary to elaborate on this statement of the apostle; it is manifestly complete as to the qualifications. In fact, the Word of God lays upon the conduct and character of a minister high demands, and he who is unwilling to strive, at least, for such qualifications should, out of common honesty, leave the office alone. It is not conceivable that God is calling a character-less man, no matter what his other competence.

These are days when a certain class of men among us are laying emphasis upon scholastic honors unknown to Scripture demands. Education of high character will forever be a mighty contribution to competence; but it can never supersede character-demands or substitute for fidelity to the Word. As Edward T. Hiscox, speaking to this subject, said: “Certain it is, that no given amount of preparatory study is an indispensable condition of ministerial fitness.”

Paul, the University graduate, may prove a more prolific writer than Peter, the unlettered fisherman; but the former was no whit more God’s minister on that account. They were alike “gifts” to the church of the ascended Lord; they were alike Spirit-inspired and Spirit-led. As a pastor and writer, Paul surpassed; as an evangelist, Peter saw the greater success; and let it be remembered to the credit of the scholarly Paul that he never spake to the discredit of his less learned brother, Peter. He had no objection to Peter’s ordination, and made no suggestion that Peter’s name be taken out of “the Regulars” and recorded on die list of “Reserves.” THE CHURCH RECOGNITION The church is to observe upon fit characteristics.— Fifty years ago, when I was in my tender youth, the village church of Dallasburg, Ky. (now Wheadey) was truly apostolic in this matter. Its officials and older members kept their eyes upon the young men of the congregation, carefully observed their conduct, gave intimate attention to their talents and, like Samuel of old, sought among the youths, “the Lord’s anointed.” They believed that the ascended Lord was still engaged in giving to the church “some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers”; (Ephesians 4:11), and they were eager to discover His will. They gave cordial reception to such youths that they might have “fellow-helpers to the truth.” (3 John 1:8) The result was such men as Dr. James Frost, Drs. Matthew and James Riley, W. B. and W. L. Riley, Dr. Tanby and others, too numerous to mention, came from that country church.

Now we have developed a condition where the Diotrephes type has been multiplied to such an extent, that youths who bring many evidences of a divine commission are not welcome in the fellowship of those “who love to have the preeminence.” (3 John 1:9)

But, as in the day of John, so now! It is not the business of office-lovers and office-seekers to decide who may enter the ministry; but it is the function of the church of God to make observation upon youth and to encourage every young Demetrius whose good character and love of the truth indicate the divine pleasure in him and the divine appointment for him. In the New Testament teaching, this whole question of fitness for the ministry rested with the ascended Lord, “Head over ail things to the church,” and with His Body, the organized company of believers. It was not with examining committees; it was not with District Associations; it was not with State Secretaries; it was not with National Convention officials, nor with Bishops. It was with the church. To find one Baptised historian, whoever commanded even attention, much less respect, from his denomination, by taking a different view of the matter, requires a wider reading than my fifty consecutive years have rendered possible.

Originally the local church determined official distinction.—To Timothy, Paul wrote: “Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on the hands of the presbytery.” (1 Timothy 4:14) In the instance of Timothy’s ordination to the ministry, it seems perfectly clear that two churches united, —the brethren at “Lystra and Iconium”; but, as in my own earliest experience, in all probability he was speaking in two churches at the same time, and they had mutually agreed upon his evident call to this work, as he was well-reported of by the brethren at both places. It is also a matter of inspired record that Paul, an apostle, visiting them at this time, joined in the ordination service by the putting on of hands. (2 Timothy 1:6) The ordination of Paul and Barnabas by the church at Antioch is recorded in Acts 13:1-3. It would seem therefore from plain New Testament teaching that the Church, formed after the New Testament model, holds, as an inherent right, the divinely-approved privilege of ordaining any man to the ministry it believes to be divinely called, and to choose for its pastor, the man of its prayer-guided choice.

Common courtesy suggests a council of sister churches.—This has some apostolic precedent, and Reason’s hearty approval. Paul was ordained by the church at Antioch; but it must have been fully understood that he would minister to the multitude of new churches that were springing up throughout Judaea, and even known to the apostle, at least, that his ministry would reach far beyond these bounds. A similar situation exists with the average candidate for ordination. On that account the long established custom of inviting sister churches to send their pastor and delegates to sit in council with the church of which the candidate is a member is approved by the principles of Revelation and the demands of Reason. This much is certain, namely that Paul and Barnabas “ordained elders in every churchy,” as on their missionary journey they visited these newly baptized Bodies of believers. (Acts 14:23) The various denominations of the present day proceed after manners suited to their forms, of church government. Churches that are ruled by officialdom require officialdom’s recognition; but churches that are autonomous, which seems to be more nearly the New Testament model, proceed on the basis of direct action in this matter. The candidate for the ministry stands before the church and their invited counselors, and states his Christian experience, his call to the ministry and his views of Christian doctrines. All questions that any member of the church or council desires to ask are answered by the candidate. Then, it is common to move a secret session, retiring the candidate in the meantime; and the council, after discussion, votes either in favor of or against procedure with the ceremony of ordination.

However, where the Congregational form of church government obtains, the right remains with the local church to accept or reject the counselors’ advice, ordain or refuse to ordain by its own vote. The rejection, however, of the advice of such counselors is extremely rare, and when it occurs, it is commonly a mistaken procedure. The minister involved, if ordained after that manner, enters a world-field seriously handicapped; in fact, popularly discredited.

Believing as we do in the autonomy of the local church in this matter, we hold, and ardently advise, that every candidate for ordination should willingly subject himself in procedure to the council’s decision. It is our judgment that (with the rarest exception) the council’s decision (unless it has been politically created and manipulated) will at once prove not only the way of wisdom, but the will of the Spirit. THE HUMAN REGULATIONS

It would be a pleasure to end this lecture at this point. It would seem that when one has made a careful study of Scripture and has sought to follow its teaching, that should suffice. But the church of God is menaced at this point also.

Men are now creating human gradations.—For centuries there has been a gradual creeping paralysis of the church by ministerial offices and honors that have been graded after the world’s weights and measures. These human gradations began in the early centuries of church history, piled up through the middle ages, and have continued even to the present time, so that in the church today there is every conceivable rank. As is well known, certain so-called denominations have retained quite a little of this medieval politico-religious arrangement; but, until recently, a number of the more evangelical bodies were free from invidious distinctions of ministerial rank. However, the world-pull is like the law of gravity. It is both persistent and powerful; and now denomination after denomination which was aforetime free from such infection is beginning to yield to the pressure of conformity to the ecclesiastical world, and falling before this spreading epidemic. To be ordained in many a denomination, one must now bring his diplomas from the schools of its demands. This movement seeks to capture the conduct of ordaining bodies in even the most democratic and evangelical denominations. This grading of ministers, this setting up of human standards, is a grievous and sad departure from the divinely prescribed method of minister-making. The Word of our Lord, concerning this matter, is: “This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” (Matthew 15:8-9)

These standards are not only human; they divide and disrupt the body of Christ.—If there was ever a place in the whole Christian system where men, who are brethren in Christ, should stand on a common level, it would seem to be that of the Gospel ministry. If by the act of creation the doctrine of common “brotherhood of men” may be declared; and if, as is the teaching of the inspired apostle, men in Christ are “beloved brethren” (1 Corinthians 15:58), it would logically follow that men who are divinely called and commissioned to a common ministry should stand, in the sight of that God who is not even a “respecter of persons,” upon a common level.

Originally it was so. Peter never assumed to be a pope, or suspected such posthumous office. Paul never set himself up as a cardinal or an archbishop, or in any wise imagined his office apart from that of Barnabas or John Mark, or the fishermen—Andrew and Peter, James and John. Timothy and Titus, young men, entered this ministry to be accorded, by their older and more prominent brethren, every fellowship of which these great and inspired souls were capable.

Paul, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, in speaking of the gifts of the Spirit, emphasizes the fact that the Body of Christ is one, and he certainly never dreamed that the ministry to that Body would assume a different attitude. But we are fast falling upon times where “the heads” are saying to “the feet”: “We have no need of you” (1 Corinthians 12:21); forgetting the New Testament principle that “those members of the body, which seem to be the more feeble, are necessary; And those members of the body which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour,” since the custom of God is that “having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked; That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another” (1 Corinthians 12:22-25) That all of this applies directly to the ministry is made perfectly clear in 1 Corinthians 12:27 where it is said: “Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers” etc.; but, to His main divisions, we propose a series of sub-divisions.

Ecclesiology, then, is threatening the New Testament ministry.—Ecclesiology is the human side in the organization and development of the Church; it is defined as “the science of organic Christianity.”

Man has always been indisposed to accept God’s models and methods as sufficient. He vainly imagines that he may improve upon them and brazenly sets himself to the task. Up to this good hour, we know of no instance in which this attempt has been eminently successful. The debris from man’s failures has converted the centuries of the past into an elongated cemetery where lie the tangled wrecks of his egotistical endeavor. The best thing that could happen to the Cause of Christianity would be a uniform consent on the part of its professors, to assign once for all to the ash-heap of forgetfulness man’s proposed improvements and return en masse to the revealed plans and programs of the Most High!

OUTLINE OF CHAPTER ONE THE PROBLEM OF APPOINTMENT (Text—1 Timothy 3:1) Introductory word—The ministry not a mere profession.

I. THE DIVINE APPOINTMENT a.This compulsion should take the form of conviction. b.Competence is a prominent evidence of this call. c.This essential qualification should be associated with others of importance; especially character. 1 Timothy 3:2-6 II. THE CHURCH RECOGNITION a.The church is to observe upon fit characteristics. b.Originally the local church determined official distinction. c.Common courtesy suggests a council of sister churches. In congregational forms the final right to ordain remains with the local church.

III. THE HUMAN REGULATIONS a.Men are now creating human gradations. b.These standards are not only human; they divide and disrupt the body of Christ. c.Ecclesiology, then, is threatening the New Testament ministry.