Why Live By A 2000-Year-Old Book?

Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.  Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall.  No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it. (1 Corinthians 10:11-13 NASB)

I don't know how many times I've been asked that question, "Why do you pay attention to a 2,000-year-old book?"  It has the ring of a 'modern' question, one asked by modern, scientific, enlightened, independent thinkers.  I think it's ironic that it appears that this question was also asked by the early church; at least in its basic concept.

A lot of what Paul wrote in letters to churches was written to correct issues in those churches.  Since we only are able to 'eves drop' on one side of the conversation, we typically have to deduce the other side from what he says in correction.  As Paul writes to Corinth, in his instruction about food sacrificed to idols (a big deal in that city), he gets to this point in his discussion where he relies on examples from Israel's history; specifically in their travels through the desert to the Promised Land.  Initially that sounds like it would be well received, but he throws in verse 11, 'Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.'  He corrected something.

I believe that Paul defends his use of Israel's history to this church because they would not initially accept this a valid example.  They would take a 'that was them, this is us' sort of easy dismissal of such an example.  The people in Corinth were very different people, under very different circumstances, facing very different problems.  Or were they?

Paul sites some initial points of connection with the believers in Corinth: 'baptized', 'ate spiritual food and drink' (i.e. Communion).  The unifying things in the church were present in the 'people wandering in the desert'.  Yet God was not pleased with most of them, so it wasn't what unified them that made them acceptable to God; therefore neither was it baptism and Communion that made the Corinthian believers acceptable.

Paul goes on to site examples from their history, but begins it by saying that 'these things happened as examples for us...'  Why do that at the beginning, and then again at the end?  It's important; and I believe it's corrective of an assumption on the part of the Corinthian believers.  I suspect they thought that there was not much to be gained from studying stories that happened 2,000 years before.  Who cares? What does that have to do with me?  I'm not in the desert, I'm not traveling to some 'Promised Land', I haven't passed through the 'Red Sea', nor is there a cloud or pillar of fire traveling around with me.  Sound familiar?

Paul ties up this section of his argument (again, about food sacrificed to idols), with the statement above.  It's a verse that most modern believers pull right out of this chapter without looking before it, or after.  "No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man..."  Paul's point is that a 2,000-year-old book is relevant for their lives because we're still people living in a 'fallen' world subject to the same testing and temptation.  I believe that a 2,000+year-old book is relevant for me today as a modern believer because I'm still a person living in a fallen world subject to the same testing and temptation.

Think about it, 'smoking' isn't covered in Scripture, but healthy dietary laws are; healthy living matters to God.  Drinking is covered in Scripture, but it seems it's still vilified by those who have been wounded by its abuse.  Buying a man's daughter as a debt-slave is covered, yet people still feel the Bible doesn't empower and protect women (see this blog entry if that one confuses you). 

All sorts of modern problems are assumed to be 'new' and the Bible irrelevant to address them.  Why?  Haven't we learned that all these 'problems' stem from a human condition internal to the person?  Haven't we discovered in psychology that people tend to behave in patterns established by their histories?  What, was that new with our 'modern culture'?  Seriously?  Freud relies on categories and diagnoses labeled for Greek Mythology because why? Because the Greek plays illustrated the very condition he 'discovered'.  Hello! Greek plays?  Yes, you find descriptions of the 'human condition' in Greek plays; and Hebrew and Christian Scripture as well.  You find them in these ancient texts because people really haven't changed that much. 

So maybe the ancient texts inspired and protected by the Creator of all humanity might be worth a good read.  Could He have left some 'clues' as to what works best?  Do you think He might have included some really good insight, like the insight only the Maker would know about what He made?  What do you think?  Perhaps? 

We, as people, will study our behinds off for an exam, for a degree, for a certification, for approval of human standards.  Why not work that hard on the texts inspired and preserved by our Creator?  Sure it's hard, I know it's not a simple thing to bring ancient languages into clear application on modern issues.  But wouldn't it be worth it?  People don't like to read, but they did to get through school.  Why for that, but not to really know their Savior? 

I write this as one guilty.  I know that there are portions of Scripture I avoid.  That doesn't excuse anyone, because I don't stand excused.  It's not a matter of how much of Scripture we avoid or don't read, we're responsible for all of it.  I know that, and yet I have avoided some vast tracts of genealogies, legal instruction, and prophecies on ancient foreign cultures.  I've pushed through Job, but gave into the tediousness of the poetic ranting, and skipped pieces.  I've read Revelation several times, but each time got so confused, turned around, and lost, that I again 'grazed' right over stuff to get to the end.  Don't even get me started on genealogies and land apportionment; wow, talk about 'dry'.  No excuse, at least not valid ones.

So, we all, as followers of Jesus, are to study Scripture, learn from what has been preserved.  We are to seek what our Creator wants us to know about His perspective on our world and how we are to behave in it.  It's not enough to learn from others either.  We have a responsibility to read for ourselves to know these things, to learn from God.  And then we can better seek the wisdom of others.  School is still in session.

To Be Paid or Not To Be Paid

Do you not know that those who perform sacred services eat the food of the temple, and those who attend regularly to the altar have their share from the altar?  So also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel.  But I have used none of these things. And I am not writing these things so that it will be done so in my case; for it would be better for me to die than have any man make my boast an empty one. (1 Corinthians 9:13-15 NASB)

 Chapter 9 of 1 Corinthians seems to be a parenthetical deviation from Paul's argument about eating food sacrificed to idols.  It's not.  It's actually a long, involved example of not exercising our rights as believers for the benefit of others.  And yet, he also takes this opportunity to 'correct' a view the church had about him, which invalidated his apostleship.

Both the basis of his example and the discrediting view of the church stemmed from Paul's service to the church there without asking for payment from the church.  In other words, Paul worked for his own wages (making/mending tents) instead of seeking support from the church.  For those in Corinth, this practice deviated from the typical itinerant philosopher/speaker types they found passing through Corinth.  It was also different from other traveling missionaries, even Peter and James.  So, for the church in Corinth, this also meant Paul wasn't all that.

As a true parenthetical comment, it seems from Acts 18:2-5 that Paul actually worked until funds from other churches came in.  When Timothy and Silas came from the churches they had just started, Paul didn't need to work, but started 'devoting himself completely to the word.' So, yes, he didn't accept payment from the church in Corinth, but he was supplied from other churches where he had worked previously.  This detail becomes important in how this chapter in 1 Corinthians get's misapplied today.

I attended a church in Arizona where one of the elders got his short in a knot with the pastor over whether pastors should be paid or not.  It was a vain, arrogant, godless, unscriptural, and thinly veiled attempt to preempt the authority of the pastor by a self-absorbed pompous lawyer-type.  He attempted to point out that pastors were, as an office, unnecessary; that the board of elders could provide the same work but for free.  It was when he tried to demonstrate this as scriptural, failed, set aside Scripture and the authority of Jesus, and the board acquiesced that I hit the roof.  I unsheathed my literary sword, sharpened the blade with all my education, and lined the edge with the venom of my resentment toward my previous church.  It was ugly, and I'm not proud of what I wrote the board, but the key line in it went something like this: "Church history past and present has taught us that where you are headed leads to little paper cups filled with cyanide and juice."  Anyway, they didn't like it.  I eventually apologized for the tone (not the content).

The reason I get so focused on this is that, in the church tradition from which I come, it seems that paying pastors always becomes the hardest thing for a church to justify.  It's as if they just can't bring themselves to pay someone to 'sit around' thinking up what to say from week-to-week; because, of course, that's all pastor's do...  The iceberg of ministry is the utter frustration of ministers.  People in churches only seem to validate that small piece they see.  It's one big reason many ministers leave the ministry, or as in my case, don't go back into it.

This isn't always the case, and many ministers make a very good living from ministry.  I never did, but I didn't stick with it all that long either.  So, this isn't a universal problem, but in smaller churches, it can be very deep and hurtful one.  This chapter in 1 Corinthians does serve to demonstrate that Paul's focus was  not his own benefit, but that of others.  But it does not demonstrate the 'value' or theological or biblical position for not paying ministers.  In fact, to support his point, Paul proves the reverse.  He has to, or his whole point in this part of the letter is completely invalidated.  If he has no right to receive payment for his services, then what 'bragging rights' does he have for not?  Look at verse 15.  He would rather die than have any man make his boast an empty one.  There's not much to boast about if he's not supposed to be receiving it in the first place.

Perhaps churches look at this passage, and then at their pastors, and ask, "why can't you be like him?" Perhaps they think that their pastors wouldn't become all things to all people so that by all means they may win some.  But haven't these ministers, by not using the obvious skills needed to minister in church setting to make much more money in a commercial setting, done the same thing?  Haven't they set aside a much easier life where they are more approved, more affirmed, and more highly paid?  Haven't they, instead, taken on a role with more stress, more misunderstanding, less control, and less money so that they might participate in the Kingdom take-over of a community and a people?  Is that diminished because they also want to be able to take care of the financial responsibilities of their families?  Really?

Yeah, this is a sore point for me.  I'm, perhaps excessively, protective of ministers.  And yes, it does stem from my own pain in previous ministry experience.  That doesn't make my perspective wrong.  What I learn from this chapter is that I have a responsibility not to 'muzzle the ox while it's threshing' (perhaps that I can call my pastor an ox?), and that I have a responsibility to help others in my church to understand this biblical principle as well.  It glorifies my Master.  And that needs to be my motivation, since that is the motivation of Paul in writing this in the first place.