Fine Prints: April, 2006

Cross Talk April 1

Pastoral Pedestals--1  April 8 

Pastoral Pedestals--2  April 15  

Pastoral Pedestals--3 April 22

Pastoral Pedestals--4 April 29    

Cross Talk 

The American Civil Liberties Union has apparently filed suit in some court somewhere, arguing that no crosses should be allowed on government property. At least that’s how their action is being portrayed. Needless to say, not every American agrees.

To show the fallacy of the ACLU’s stance, someone has circulated an e-mail photo of a U.S. military cemetery in which thousands of perfectly arrayed crosses mark the final resting place of thousands of U.S. service personnel.

The lush green lawn of the military cemetery makes the stark-white crosses stand out in bold relief. It’s a moving sight. The picture confirms that the ACLU’s call for no crosses on government property is stupid, sinister or both.

Or maybe not.

When I strongly disagree with someone, I try to remember to go through a simple exercise that I’ve found helpful (I say try to remember, because all too often I forget): I take a few minutes to try to imagine a scenario in which a person could take the stance my opponent has taken and still be a sane, rational and honorable human being. Going through such an exercise doesn’t mean that I end up agreeing. But it usually makes me more understanding.

So how could the ACLU possibly have anything but sinister motives for opposition to crosses?

Suppose for a moment, that a Jew has given his or her life in military service. The family believes that the fallen hero would want to buried among military comrades. The only problem is, the grave marker will be a cross.

Now, I’ll be the first to agree that a huge military cemetery of uniformly placed crosses is an impressive sight to behold. It nearly takes one’s breath away. But the cross means something altogether different to the Jewish patriot from what it means to the Christian patriot. And the same might apply to a Hindu, a Muslim, a Buddhist or an atheist.

Obviously, the cemetery has more esthetic appeal if every grave is uniformly adorned with a cross. Since at least nominal Christianity is the majority religion in the United States, the majority of Americans will probably like the idea. Stars of David and statues of Buddha destroy the symmetry.

But if I were not a Christian, would I want a distinctly Christian symbol adorning my military grave? As a Christian, would I want a statue of Buddha adorning my grave, if the tables were turned?

I believe that the ACLU at times—maybe even often—goes too far. I think it misguided to try to keep all crosses off all government property in all situations—if indeed that’s what’s being attempted. The history of the United States has been intertwined with Christianity. The cross has played a role in our history and it has deep meaning to a lot of people today. Let’s not seek to rewrite history or limit the free exercise of religion.

Having said that, however, it’s equally problematic for us not to recognize that there are legitimate reasons why in a given situation a cross on government property might be inappropriate.

As in most areas of life, a little balance goes a long way.

Jim Coffin, Senior Pastor

Pastoral Pedestals--1 

When I said in a recent sermon that pastors don’t have a special calling that’s inherently different from the calling of everyone else in the congregation, it raised a few eyebrows. Maybe even a few hackles.

We’re used to putting the clergy on a pedestal. And most of the clergy like it. It gives us greater power and status. The only problem is, it’s not biblical.

The Bible knows of no such thing as laity and clergy. It knows only of laity. The word "laity" just means "the people." Oh, to be sure, there are different roles within laity. That’s what the doctrine of spiritual gifts is all about. Some are gifted—and called—in one area. Some in another.

1 Corinthians 12:8-11 says: "To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines."

But the Bible doesn’t stop there. I Corinthians 12:28-30 lists another cluster of gifts—and callings: "And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues."

This "giftedness" concept goes even further. The apostle Paul says in Romans 12:6-8: "We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. If a man’s gift is prophesying, let him use it in proportion to his faith. If it is serving, let him serve; if it is teaching, let him teach; if it is encouraging, let him encourage; if it is contributing to the needs of others, let him give generously; if it is leadership, let him govern diligently; if it is showing mercy, let him do it cheerfully."

Even abilities that we normally wouldn’t think of as spiritual are considered spiritual gifts—and callings. Note the following concerning those who constructed the sanctuary (Exodus 35:30-35): "‘The LORD has chosen Bezalel son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, and he has filled him with the Spirit of God, with skill, ability and knowledge in all kinds of crafts—to make artistic designs for work in gold, silver and bronze, to cut and set stones, to work in wood and to engage in all kinds of artistic craftsmanship. And he has given both him and Oholiab son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan, the ability to teach others. He has filled them with skill to do all kinds of work as craftsmen, designers, embroiderers in blue, purple and scarlet yarn and fine linen, and weavers—all of them master craftsmen and designers.’"

But there’s still more. Next week we’ll look at the only appearance of the word "pastor" in the entire New Testament.

Jim Coffin, Senior Pastor

Pastoral Pedestals--2 

When I recently stated in a sermon that pastors don’t have a special calling that’s inherently different from the calling of everyone else in the congregation, not everyone agreed. My statement certainly departed from the traditions that have grown up around pastoral ministry. But those traditions aren’t clearly established in scripture.

The word "pastor" appears only once in the entire New Testament—whether I use the NIV or the KJV.

The apostle Paul says in Ephesians 4:11-13: "It was He [Christ] who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith . . . ."

To be fair, I must note that in the KJV we encounter eight Old Testament references to pastors—all found in the book of Jeremiah, and almost all of them indictments against appalling pastoral performance. At best, a theology of pastoral ministry requires substantial guess work, because the biblical references are limited indeed.

Over the past couple of decades we’ve had considerable debate in the Adventist Church about the propriety of ordaining women to pastoral ministry. One of the strong arguments against doing so has been the lack of biblical precedent: There’s no direct scriptural reference to any woman ever having been ordained. What hasn’t been brought up, however, is that there’s also no scriptural reference to any pastor—male or female—ever having been ordained.

Apostles were ordained (Mark 3:14). Elders were ordained (Acts 14:23). Deacons were ordained (Acts 6:1-7). Missionaries were ordained (Acts 13:1-4). And the biblical reference that most nearly equates with ordination of a pastor is that Timothy was ordained for a role that involved the public reading of scripture, preaching and teaching (1 Timothy 4:13, 14). But that’s it. The bulk of our tradition of pastoral ordination is based on extrapolation.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I think that ordination of pastors is a logical and appropriate extrapolation from ordaining apostles, elders, deacons and missionaries. But I don’t think it’s logical to ordain pastors but not teachers or healthcare providers or musicians or many others playing a wide variety of spiritually gifted roles.

And, as I pointed out last week, the Bible suggests that even skilled artisans are gifted and called by God. Think about the implications of such a concept: In every walk of life, God calls people to the role they play.

Every young person should bring God into his or her wrestling with life plans. Every young person should be able to say ultimately—just as pastors should be able to say—"I believe that God is calling me to do this. And by doing it, I’m working with God and for God. I’m fulfilling a God-given mission."

My purpose in addressing this topic isn’t to diminish the significance of pastoral ministry. Playing such a highly visible leadership and nurturing role is by no means insignificant. Pastors have a great responsibility to execute the duties of their office in a "What Would Jesus Do?" manner. But pastors aren’t alone in this. Everyone, whatever their role, should feel called by God to that role and should feel obligated to God in how they execute their responsibilities.

That’s all I’m trying to say. Well, almost. I’ll address the rest next week.

Jim Coffin, Senior Pastor

Pastoral Pedestals--3 

When in a recent sermon I suggested that pastors don’t have a call from God that’s inherently different from the call given to everyone else in the congregation, I stirred things up. And I’ve continued stirring them by writing "Pastoral Pedestals—1" and "Pastoral Pedestals—2." In Pastoral Pedestals—3," I want to talk about what it is that pastors are actually called to.

A couple of years ago I had an interesting conversation with a successful businessman—an Adventist pastor’s son, actually. He told me that pastors aren’t held in high enough esteem by either congregations or the system—that they aren’t treated with the due deference that should be accorded "the Lord’s anointed."

The man told me that the church should pay ministers at a level commensurate with their high calling. Every minister should be paid in the six-figure range. And every minister should be able to drive the Mercedes, Lexus or BMW of his choice and wear Armani suits.

Needless to say, as a pastor, I liked where he was heading! But only momentarily. Because the luxurious picture he painted doesn’t mesh with the "call" I feel God has given me.

Now, I think the laborer is worthy of his hire (1 Timothy 5:18). And I think pastoral remuneration should be fair, equitable and adequate. But under no circumstances should it be lavish. Not even for those who run their own religious TV shows!

Paul, a persecuted, imprisoned, shipwrecked itinerant pastor, evangelist, prophet and writer in the early church, said this: "Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant . . ." (Philippians 2:5-7).

Jesus, the ultimate servant-leader, said: "No servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him" (John 13:16). If Jesus came as a servant, His followers must likewise view themselves as servants. Especially pastors.

The word "servant" seems to crop up repeatedly in the New Testament. Particularly in the teachings of Jesus Himself. "Whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant," He said, "and whoever wants to be first must be your slave—just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (Matthew 20:26-28).

"The greatest among you will be your servant," Jesus said. "For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted" (Matthew 23:11, 12).

The foregoing should give some insight into why I’m not in favor of putting pastors or any other group on a pedestal. Whatever our vocation, whether its inside or outside the church, paid or volunteer, we’re all here first and foremost for the uplifting of humanity and to share God’s love. And pastors should set an example of that kind of ministry.

In light of the foregoing, I think you’ll understand why I don’t like the title of a little publication that comes out periodically for pastors’ wives. It’s called "First Ladies."

But I think I’ve hammered this theme enough.

Jim Coffin, Senior Pastor

Pastoral Pedestals--4 

OK. OK. I admit it. I said last week that I’d hammered the theme of "pastoral pedestals" enough. I mean, three goes at it would surely be more than sufficient. But maybe not.

I have one more example of traditional clergy "prerogative" that I must get off my chest. Remember, I said the Bible knows only of laity--"the people." Certainly, the laity have varying spiritual gifts. And those gifts include—but aren’t limited to—pastoring and administration and evangelism. But the idea of a special category of church member labeled clergy, which is cut from a different cloth—which is called, while none of the other members are—doesn’t come from the Bible. That’s a human tradition.

Jesus told the apostles to "go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you" (Matthew 28:18-20).

Note that they were to go to all nations, they were to make disciples, they were to baptize and they were to teach others everything that Jesus had taught them.

Seventh-day Adventists believe that the "gospel commission," as we often label this passage, applies to all of Christ’s followers. We’ve all been called—note that word—to share with others the good news of salvation. We’ve never thought that only the clergy were expected to proclaim the gospel. So on what basis do we say that lay members should go, should make disciples and should teach what Jesus has taught us, but that baptizing is the sole prerogative of the clergy?
That idea isn’t contained in the Bible. Rather, it’s an outgrowth of the concept of apostolic succession—only those who have been appointed by those who were appointed by the apostles have the right to perform certain functions. That’s the pope’s claim to bona fides—he maintains that he sits in the seat of Peter. But I don’t find that to be the biblical model of church structure.

Now let me cut just a little slack concerning our current way of doing things. The apostle Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 14:40 that "everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way." While he wasn’t specifically addressing the matter of baptism, he does lay down a principle that’s applicable across the board.

If there were no protocols concerning baptism, things could degenerate into chaos in a manner that would hurt the church and hurt those who are baptized. So the idea of having prerequisites about how baptisms must be done is certainly in harmony with biblical teaching. However, assuming that only pastors can perform baptisms because they’re of a different order from the rest of the members isn’t a biblical concept.

If people in our churches knew that, when they’ve shared their faith and studied with a person in preparation for baptism, they would have the privilege of inducting that person into the body of Christ by officiating at her or his baptism, I think they’d be a lot more inspired to share their faith.

So this particular pastoral pedestal has wide-ranging implications. It isn’t just academic. But it is an issue that I am—for real this time!—going to quit talking about.