Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example, because we did not act in an undisciplined manner among you, nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with labor and hardship we kept working night and day so that we would not be a burden to any of you; not because we do not have the right to this, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you, so that you would follow our example. For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either. For we hear that some among you are leading an undisciplined life, doing no work at all, but acting like busybodies. Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to work in quiet fashion and eat their own bread. But as for you, brethren, do not grow weary of doing good.
Before we get into how this verse has sent waves of distortion throughout Western society, we should first try to understand what Paul is getting at in his verses. He talks about the example that he and his fellow missionaries set when living with the Thessalonians. Even though they could have, by merit of being church officers, expected the church to provide them lodging and food, they decided, instead, that they would set an example for how members within a body of believers should behave. That is, to say, that they provided their own finances instead of burdening the local church. This part is well understood and has become a model for missionary support - that the missionaries seek their own sponsorship from home, or they find a job in an area and provide their own support, ministering on the side.
However, Paul, says, there are some who are financially abusing the church. He calls them undisciplined busybodies. I think a pretty good correlation to today's society is that the Thessalonian church had a bunch of "Kens" and "Karens" running around telling people how to live their lives, and expecting special treatment in the form of food and money. Somewhat like the Kens of the world who use some perceived slight to demand special treatment. Paul gives an interesting command that rings true today. Shut up and get a life! I bet it would be interesting to channel Paul when talking to the church micromanagers of today!
Paul was talking specifically about the church, though. The church was functioning somewhat like a communist society. The rich were selling property so that they could support people in the congregation, such as widows without families and people who were religiously persecuted. People who were in true need. The widows, some have suggested, took on diaconal ministry for the church, but they were primarily people with no ability to earn wages and no family to provide. As often happens, greed entered the picture and there were people who provided fake diaconal ministry (busybodies) and expected a free lunch (undisciplined).
Out of Context and out of proportion
This narrow command to address a problem in the early church of undisciplined busybodies taking advantage of church-based charity ends of taking on a life of its own and being used as a bludgeon to beat down all sorts of sensible practices. First, it is taken out of context - from the local church to a general principle of personal charity and societal structure. Then it is blown out of proportion. Instead of undisciplined busybodies, this is applied generally to all needy people everywhere.
When the context is expanded, there quickly become conflicts with other laws. For example, the Old Testament commands a charitable system that works in an agricultural system. In Deut. 24, God specifically commands a form of societal charity - limit your harvest so that the poor and disadvantaged can eat. Now that we aren't generally agricultural, Paul's argument wears new wings - work or starve. In other words, there is no longer a need for charity because charity in the Old Testament required people to work a harvest, therefore we can just tell poor people to "Get a job". There's no longer a need for any sort of state-managed system to combat poverty because we just tell everyone "work or starve". We may give when a hurricane hits or we may give when fire burns someone's house down, but something like structural poverty (remember Jesus said you will always have the poor with you?) doesn't need to be addressed.
Likewise Paul's argument is blown out of proportion. Here we have a few people who are taking advantage of the church for whom Paul recommends a specific form of discipline - essentially being freed to experience the consequences of their actions. Certainly in many cases, people develop poor discipline because they are protected from the consequences of their actions, but it is very Pharisaical thinking to say that all negative consequences are a result of negative actions. It was their rationale that said a man born blind was either himself a sinner or born of parents who sinned. Not some general concept of sin, like living in a broken world, but they did something so evil that God punished their child with blindness. Job's friends assumed that he had committed great sin and was being punished by God. This type of thinking persists in Evangelical thinking. The person who is begging on the street is assumed to be there because of some poor or evil decision. The man who is destitute because a medical issue wiped out his finances wasn't sufficiently frugal. So, we've turned "undisciplined busybodies" into a generalized accusation of all poor people. If only they tried harder (legalism), they would experience the blessing of God and better employment. I fell into this trap myself - trying to push people who were experiencing poverty to work harder or make themselves more marketable.
How does this get twisted in Reformed Christianity? Let's talk about some of the ways:
1. Individual charity - since our country is rich, we don't need to help people other than tell them to fix themselves. Maybe we can help people who don't work or give to a GoFundMe to help someone in dire straits, but for the most part if people just got off their butts and worked there would be no need for charity. Besides I pay my taxes, so that's all taken care of anyway, even though I only vote for candidates who want to lower my taxes and reduce any government payouts.
2. Church charity - if only our churches had enough people that we could give to the poor we could make progress. We barely have enough to make ends meet. For churches that have more, we really want to invest in ourselves first - maybe an associate pastor and a fellowship hall would be good. Once we feel comfortable then maybe we look outside the walls to help those in need.
Tying value to work
Another facet of this verse is the Evangelical focus on work - it comes in many forms from legalism (focusing on the works we must do to demonstrate our faithfulness), to vocation (a word that elevates our work to a religious necessity) and calling (similar to vocation, but expanding on the idea that God somehow has a unique purpose for our daily grind).
What is interesting is that Jesus's vocation was to preach the gospel. Not in the sense of today's pastor who gets paid to prepare a sermon each week, but more like a street preacher who maybe passes around a hat after he's done. He was a carpenter's son, but nothing is said about what he did before he was 30 years old. So, if his supposed job as a carpenter was a "calling" why do we hear nothing about that spiritual experience?
I'm not saying that work should be useless drudgery devoid of spirituality. My pastor comments often that people watched Brother Lawrence wash dishes "in the presence of the Lord". The emphasis, though, isn't on him being called to wash dishes, but that he learned to experience joy in the presence of God even doing something his fellow monks thought servile and perhaps pointless.
Maybe this idea came from contrast with the Catholic church. Priests take a vow of poverty, and maybe it seems so ridiculous that poverty is somehow spiritual (remember that many in the time of Jesus also associated poverty with a lack of blessing and thus sloth or some other sin) that Protestants decided that poverty is a sure sign of some moral failing.
I wonder how much of this is conflated. For example, consider a person who retires and within a year or two dies. Pastors love to say that the retiree forsook work and because work is so built into our DNA that the retiree lost their sense of worth and died. Is it that work is somehow core to our being, or is it, perhaps, that work is core to how others value us? Do we see retires as valuable, or are they just waiting out their days until they die?
When I say we worship work, that is what I mean. We as a society, and as a church, value people for their capability to contribute tangibly to something than their value as a human being. As a friend of mine says, "We are human beings, not human doings!" I've had to have that internal struggle with work. I want to be present with my family and with God, but it's difficult, to say the least, when my boss also expects me to be present in ways that make me have to choose between being a "good" worker, good father and good Christian. It's difficult to feel a tangible value as a family man and a church member when work writes my value on a paycheck each month. Work-based value is built in our society at many levels. Schools value children based on their intelligence and ability to output work. I know people who struggled with school who were told to "work harder". It's hard because we obviously want people to learn to the best of their ability, but when school is consuming 10 hours a day and a student is still sinking, maybe the solution isn't to spend 12, and maybe even striving for the 'A' isn't what is best for the person. I think it's easy for a person who is struggling with work to end up in a spiritual crisis, just like the retiree.
13 comments:
Have you noticed what percentage of church tithes go to the pastor in this church? It’s astounding.
It's pretty common in the RPCNA. I was told growing up that if everyone in church tithed 10%, the church would have more money than they knew what to do with. I don't think that works out because RPCNA churches seem to be "too big" at 100-200 at worship, but a 200 member church is going to have two pastors, so, let's assume one pastor per 100 in worship. Taking the average wage, the pastor is probably making ~$100k and there are 25 households (2 adults, 2 kids) with an average of $100k income in the church. If everyone tithed, that would be $250k yearly income. A building that can hold 100 comfortably is probably going to cost ~$100k in upkeep and utilities. So, there is $50k left (1/5th) for whatever programs and ministries the church wants to do. That's hardly "more money than they know what to do with". That's not enough money to provide healthcare and a social safety net to even the 100 members.
But, the rule of thumb is that an RP church is going to spend (minimum) 2/5 of its income on the pastor. If a church has 30 members, it still has to pay the pastor enough to live (more than they can likely afford), or agree to a part-time pastor.
Somebody please help me get my son out of the RPCNA. I was never a member. My ex husband is a ruling elder and has weaponizing his power in the church to emotionally cripple my adult son. In his heart, he wants to get away, but he clings to the chance his father might be the father he never had. My ex husband is a liar, and a thief, and a cheat, and lied about the circumstances of our divorce to be an elder. All he cares about is money. He thinks his son is an extension of himself, and demands obedience and meekness from his 25 year old son. Somebody please help. I’m so desperate for help I’ll leave my phone number here please text me 469-340-8882. Thank to anyone who reads this and can help me ask the right questions of my son in a gentle way so that he starts asking questions.
Sorry this happened to you. What I've read elsewhere is to be supportive and pray that God will open his eyes. I know a few people who have at least acknowledged that the RPCNA is abusive, but still stay for one reason or another. I would also research the cycle of abuse. Assuming your ex is abusive, there is going to be a cycle that involves pushing boundaries, abuse and then hoovering (love bombing to pull the abused back into the relationship). I've been completely unsuccessful at trying to make my friends/family see the extent of the abuse. They choose delusion over the truth and I don't want to give you false hope that there is some magic phrase you can say to open their eyes. It has to come from the Holy Spirit, but you can continue to love and accept your son with the hopes that if/when he sees the truth, he knows you're a safe person to process the abuse with.
Madam,
I’m sorry this is happening. If your ex-husband lied about the circumstances, and there is any evidence, you should submit this to the Synod. There will possibly be a roadblock set up regarding a non-member doing this, but it is possibly allowed in some circumstances.
I suggest leaving an email address that’s secure when communicating with anyone who responds. You may possibly get more response that way. Also, please be careful in how you correspond. Not everyone who responds may possibly have good intentions, and trolling is a possibility.
Finally, don’t click on/open any image attachments by phone or email if sent by anyone.
It's always worth a try. My experience is that Synod won't touch anything that hasn't gone through "proper channels", and Presbytery is similar. At the church level, the big issue will be that you're not a member of the church, so there is no way for them to threaten you if you're lying. If one member brings fraudulent charges against another, they can punish the member. I know of one case where a non-RP tried to bring charges against a member. This was a pretty good church at the time. They tried to provide arbitration, but ultimately decided that the situation was not really clear cut and they weren't going to proceed with a trial since he wasn't a member of the church.
That said, it may be different if there is documented evidence. The case I'm talking about was more of an interpersonal conflict with charges of sin than something that would be on public record.
Even if the issue isn’t put to trial, the matter would still have been put to the individual consciences of each elder. It not manmade synod/presbytery rules that will get them off the hook of inaction before a Holy God. We can make excuses for why we don’t address things on earth, but the Bible provides no escape for avoidance of such issues.
To the woman who wrote and left her number: I would still submit it to their consciences. If they choose to evade the issue on the grounds that it’s against their mannade rules that create intentional slow-downs and road blocks, their guilt will still stand. We can lie to ourselves and say, “we didn’t address it because it didn’t go through the proper channels,” but the it’s God’s Word that will have the last stand.
I really do personally advocate for forgiveness in all matters. The only reason I said the aforementioned is because it seems he is possibly unrepentant. But for the record, for any person in Christ who has repented, I wholeheartedly recommend full forgiveness. A person can move on after repentance and shouldn’t have his sin held over him by other Christians at that point (as in condemnation, I mean, because I’m not saying there aren’t consequences in some cases). Forgiveness doesn’t mean trust or anything like that. I won’t dare corrupt the meaning of forgiveness like the RP do. But I recommend it how Jesus means it, and no more or less.
I agree with the Blog host (sorry, I am old and don’t know the term, I know nothing of blogs or their etiquette) that you should pray and be supportive. Excellent advice! I would add that it may be prudent to not push the issue of getting out of the denomination, and would instead “put on Christ” and be fully able and willing to comfort your son at any point, and especially if he decides to leave at some point. Pushing the issue can push your son back more. I’d focus on your Christian witness, and pray that God prevails on his heart. I know it’s tough, because we hurt for these family and want resolution immediately. We worry and become careworn, I know.
If you leave an email address, I’ll write. But with a phone number, the person reaching out would have to expose their phone number. Not to mention, I don’t text. Many of us who’ve left have had to change our numbers and some even moved. I changed all contact info and moved out of state. I’ll pray for you and your son.
Yes, true. If he was the guilty party in the divorce, that should be disqualifying. I don’t believe the Bible allows divorce except in cases of adultery. But adultery is more than cheating. A man who sexually abuses a child has, in a real sense, committed adultery. So you could look at the reasons and decide if you believe he is in the wrong and gather evidence. I would just advise prayer and keeping motives at the forefront when you pray. Because I know this church, I believe it is harmful to anyone in it. So I believe it’s good for your son to leave it. But if your former husband was removed from his office, and still stayed there as a member, would your son still stay? Would he be angry with you for the demotion? Possibly. It gets tougher when they marry into the church. If he’s single, it’s best to leave then. All in all, whatever you decide, prayer and support, like the blog owner recommended, may be the best route. When my youngins were growing up, they seemed to go further in the opposite direction of the one I advised. I learned when they were adults to pray and support but not wrestle with them in their choices for the most part.
Thanks, yes, forgiveness is weaponized in the RPCNA. This idea that once you forgive the other person all consequences are removed is not healthy. I've heard it be used to flip the script on the innocent party. Something like: "You say you forgave him, but you still have him blocked on your cell phone. Until you unblock him, we're going to put you under discipline for unforgiveness."
Like Anonymous, I learned the hard way that it's better to be a safe person and let the Holy Spirit do his work in changing hearts. The RP tactic of being constantly in the face of "sinners" doesn't change hearts. I think people around Jesus knew where they stood with him, but felt safe enough to be themselves and confide in him. The RP pressure is more in/out centered - I've identified sin in you and now if you don't change, you're an outsider to me. I used to joke about a church that was quick to discipline, "will the last sinless person to leave please turn off the lights?"
They make up things as they go along, and why not? Their members don’t challenge them.
No trial bc he wasn’t a member?! Yikes! Will they say that to God, when they give an account? “God, I know he brutalized this person, and didn’t repent, but the victim isn’t a member so I let it go.”
It was a parent who was trying to control their adult child through the church. The child sought counsel with an elder and the elder told the child that they are not required to obey the parent and that "honor" does not equate to obedience (we see this same manipulative behavior in the case of James Odom and his adult daughter). The parent tried to bring the elder up on charges that he was encouraging insubordination. Ultimately, like Odom, the trial would have done nothing. The elder would have been cleared and the parent would have gone away in a huff, but not changed in any way. Like Odom, even if the parent was a member, the ruling of the court does not compel anything when the person is more interested in manipulation than submission.
Part of the fact that a church is essentially a members-only club whose members choose to be bound by the bylaws makes it even more questionable when those outside the club try to use the club rules to manipulate those inside.
Post a Comment