I Peter 5:1-11

Text — I Peter 5:1-11
Subject — Congregational Care
Theme — The characteristics of congregational care
Proposition — The characteristics of congregational care should create within us certain expectations for Elders and Churches

Introduction

General requirement for Christians to shepherd one another

1 Brothers and sisters, if someone is caught in a sin, you who live by the Spirit should restore that person gently. But watch yourselves, or you also may be tempted. 2 Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. (Gal. 6)

Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves. (Rom. 12)

16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters. 17 If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be that person? 18 Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth. (I John 3)

8 Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins. Offer hospitality to one another without grumbling. (I Pt.)

6 Let the message of Christ dwell among you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom through psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit, singing to God with gratitude in your hearts.

Of course all of this implies a certain involvement in one another’s lives that extends beyond a couple hours on Sunday. This would have been perhaps more common in First century churches since those Churches were completely local and people schedules during the week weren’t enhanced by automobiles. These passages came home to these people because these people were neighbors.

However, beyond the general care that was to be the privilege and responsibility of every Christian there was laid upon certain men the charge of a particular care for the household of God. (Titus 1:5, Acts 14:23)

These men were called Elders, Pastors, Presbyters or Bishops. Some of them were given the general charge of care while to others of them were added the responsibility of teaching. The unique responsibility of these men was to be to the small congregations what a Shepherd was to a flock of sheep. As a shepherd was to look over the well being of his sheep — protecting them, leading them to feed and water, tending to their cares and hurts, — so the Shepherds of the congregation were to protect God’s people, be instrumental in their spiritual feeding and watering, and be among them to tend to their cares and hurts. As a Shepherd loved his flock, so the Elders were to love the congregation.

Here Peter deals with the issue of Elders and as he deals with the issue of Elders we would do well to understand that when we consider Congregational life, both now and in our future — Peter teaches us what we should expect from the Elders of a congregation.

As Peter inks this exhortation he reminds them of his position.

a.) Fellow Elder — Interesting that Peter merely names himself as one such as they
b.) Witness of Sufferings of Christ — Mark of Apostleship
c.) Partaker of glory — Note Present tense

Peter clearly teaches here that the Elders have a leadership position. As Shepherds, they are to be overseers.

This metaphor of Shepard is not unique to Peter though Jesus did say to Peter directly that Peter was to … “Feed Christ’s Sheep.” Throughout Scripture we find this metaphor of Shepherd used to describe God’s leaders.

God Himself is addressed as a Shepherd in Psalm 80

1 Hear us, Shepherd of Israel,
you who lead Joseph like a flock.
You who sit enthroned between the cherubim,
shine forth
———

In Ezekial the leaders are upbraided for being lousy Shepherds

1 The word of the LORD came to me: 2 “Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel; prophesy and say to them: ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: Woe to you shepherds of Israel who only take care of yourselves! Should not shepherds take care of the flock?

Similar language is used in Jeremiah 23

And the theme of Shepherd is picked up in the Psalms, Ezra, Zechariah and other books.

When you turn to the NT Jesus is the good Shepherd who lays down his life for the sheep and Peter notes here is the Great Shepherd.

So, when Peter turns to this metaphor he is turning to one that has a long and storied history in the Hebrew mind. Shepherds are to be God’s overseer’s who are answerable to God.

We should say at the outset that this call to Shepherding implies immediately the tenderest of relationships between the shepherd and his flock. It is true that the Shepherds are the overseers but they are overseeing they whom they love as their own and when you get right down to it they are but Sheep themselves who have need of being shepherded.

Peter gets to the nitty gritty of this Shepherding matter when he turns to give some qualifiers of what he is expecting in Shepherds. What I find so fascinating about this list is how resilient it remains some 2000 years later.

I.)Shepherd Characteristic #1 — Shepherding is done willingly (not by compulsion)

This is a implicit warning against laziness in the ministry

The ministry requires great effort on those who take it up effectively. You must become an expert in theology, people skills, you must become proficient in the languages, you must know your Bible, history, economics, sociology, law, etc.

Then on top of this you must be involved in the lives of your people as much as possible.

It is not the physical labor of the factory worker, or the meticulous skills of the airline agent, but it is work none the less… and hard work at that.

II.)Shepherd Characteristic # 2 — Shepherding is done eagerly (not for dishonest gain)

This is a implicit warning against greed in the ministry

I probably don’t need to go into all the stories about greed in the ministry.

Greed is a great hindrance to the ministry, not only for what it will cause men to do in order to get gain, but also for what it will cause men not to do or say in order to get gain.

Often, men who are in the ministry for gain will not say those things that need to be said for fear of losing profits by speaking against the wickedness of our times, or by speaking against some sin in a congregation.

III.) Shepherd Characteristic # 2 — Shepherding is done by example

This is a implicit warning against power tripping in the ministry

Calvin offers that one way power tripping is seen is by Pastors exempting themselves from the expectations that are laid upon the flock.

There is a danger among Christian Churches today to do a kind of Hollywood model of ministry where some Rock Star becomes the Pastor and the congregation becomes a bunch of groupies and woe be unto anybody who questions the Rock Star to closely. Often in these kinds of Churches there is a kind of ecclesiastical tyranny that goes on in the leadership as the great leader’s whims becomes diktat.

Instead what Peter offers in place of that is rule by example. The Shepherds do not pronounce edicts that everyone must follow upon pain of ex-communication or shunning but rather they set the example to be followed or not followed.

Shepherding, by its very definition is not done by driving people. Besides, quality people can’t be driven and when you try to drive them you’ll just get (and deservedly so) revolt.

The model here is example …

Jesus washing the feet of the Disciples (Jn. 13).
Jesus casting aside his privilege in order to serve (Phil. 2:5-11)
Jesus warning against the Political model of Leadership (Mark 10:42-45)

As an Elder you have to be willing, in most cases, to state your concerns to people without demanding of people that it is your way or else.

The phrase … “Those entrusted to you” is interesting because it reminds Shepherds that they are responsible for a particular flock.

Of course we know that the end of all this Shepherding was Jesus Christ. The Shepherd’s chief responsibility was feeding and watering their people with the Gospel of Jesus Christ which proclaims forgiveness of sins, and standing with God, and the rest and peace that comes from that. The Chief role of the Shepherd was to herald the good news of Jesus Christ for sinners. The chief role of the Shepherd was to speak up both the objectivity of the Gospel which is Christ for us and the subjective consequence of the Gospel which is Christ renewing us by His Spirit and His Law-Word.

The under-shepherd is to remind people who God declares us to be and what we can’t help but become in light of God’s Declaration.

The fullness of the Reward is delayed — vs. 4

It is no longer “Soft” Tyranny

There are those among us who insist that currently we are suffering under “soft tyranny.” I take those who speak this way to mean that the tyranny that we are currently experiencing is not of the overt kind that one reads about when one reads of the Soviet Show trials, or when one reads about the German Einsatzgruppen, or when one reads about the Killing fields of Cambodia. Instead, what the phrase “soft tyranny” is supposed to communicate is the incremental tyranny that can be likened to being suffocated by a pillow as opposed to being suffocated by the butt end of a M-16.

I understand the metaphor of “soft tyranny” but I think it is time that we give it up for something harsher to describe what we are currently being subjected to in this country. We are long past the gentle coastal regions of “soft tyranny” that was in place when Woodrow Wilson and FDR were the Tyrants in Chief. Today we are well into the rugged highlands of tyranny and we really must altar our language to reflect that. Fortunately, for us, our history provides us with nomenclature that can be dusted off and used again to describe what we are currently living under and to which we are now subjected.

In our Declaration of Independence our forefathers complained of “absolute Despotism,” and “Absolute tyranny.” So, in the Spirit of 1776 I submit that we lose the “soft tyranny” language and begin to speak again like our Fathers and speak of absolute Despotism and Absolute tyranny. After all, there really is nothing “soft” about this totalitarian regime with which we are contending.

Can the tyranny we are currently living under, really only be referred to as “soft” when there is obviously a concerted attempt to destroy the dollar with all our bailouts and now with the news of “QE2.” Should the tyrannical attempt to hyper-inflate the dollar, be visited only with the sobriquet “soft?” I assure you, Dear reader, should the Feds be successful in hyper-inflating the Dollar you will not call the results, “soft.” No, only the descriptor of “absolute Despotism” will do.

Can the tyranny we are currently living under, really only be referred to as “soft” when one listens to Economic Nobel Prize winning Democrats who have the President’s ear say we will only be serious about budgetary reform when we create death panels and submit to a Value added tax? Such, policy, if achieved, would take us even beyond absolute Despotism to Stalinesque Tyranny.

Can the tyranny we are currently living under, really only be referred to as “soft” when one reads of legislation that is being moved that will restrict our ability to grow our own garden produce and own our own garden seed? What else but “absolute Despotism” can this be called? There is nothing “soft” in the tyranny that would find the State preventing people from tilling their ground and raising their food.

Can the tyranny we are currently living under, really only be referred to as “soft” when the American version of Dr. Josef Mengele is appointed as the man who will head our brand spanking new Health Control centers? Dr. Donald Berwick is a man who doesn’t think that individuals are competent enough to determine what health care they should have and insists that the State must regulate your health care,

“Today, this isolated relationship (between doctor and patient) is no longer tenable or possible… Traditional medical ethics, based on the doctor- patient dyad must be reformulated to fit the new mold of the delivery of health care…Regulation must evolve. Regulating for improved medical care involves designing appropriate rules with authority… Health care is being rationalized through critical pathways and guidelines. The primary function of regulation in health care, especially as it affects the quality of medical care, is to constrain decentralized decision making.”

Now there is a good deal of mumbo jumbo in that quote, but the gist of it is, “The medical decisions process that used to be made by you and your Doctor is passe and as such a government official is going to be part of the decision making matrix in terms of your health care … for your own good of course. These government officials, who are involved for your own good in the decision making process of your health, will have rules that you and your doctor will be forced to abide by (for everyone’s good of course). These rules will make it so that decentralized decision making (code language for you, the patient) will be constrained (code language for “you will be forced to do what we say is good for you.”) This is absolute Despotism my friends and the word “soft” blushes to be used to describe the tyranny that is described above.

Can the tyranny we are currently living under, really only be referred to as “soft” when one is forced to surrender their fourth amendment safety when they go to an Airport in order to visit Gradpa and Grandma for holiday? Is it really only “soft” tyranny when you’re getting gang banged by the state as the “I’d feel up my Sister for a paycheck” TSA, in their muted gestapo uniforms, twist your breasts and power stroke your genitalia? I’m thinking only “absolute Despotism” fits when we are talking about State sanctioned sexual assault.

Can the tyranny we are currently living under, really only be referred to as “soft” when it is clear that what the man who is called the “President” intends to do is to achieve by bureaucratic slight of hand what he couldn’t attain via legislation in terms of cap and tax? Is it only “soft” when the intent of such tyranny is to drive the coal industry out of business? Is it only “soft” when the intent of such tyranny will drive food prices through the ceiling and impoverish Americans? Is it only “soft” when the intent of such legislation will result in brownouts across America? There is nothing “soft” about such designs. This is nothing but what our founders styled “absolute Despotism … absolute tyranny.”

We could go on and on but already we have demonstrated that “soft” tyranny is just to soft of a title for what we are living under. All of this is an attempt at the undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. This is absolute tyranny and those who will not resist absolute tyranny deserve to eventually fall into Stalinesque tyranny.

Surely, no one would argue that all these expressions of absolute tyranny are anything but the result of prearranged efforts. When we see a lot of framed timbers of usurpation, of different proportions, which we know have been laid at different times and by different tyrants, and when we see these framed timbers of usurpation joined together, and see they exactly make the frame of the house of absolute Despotism, — every previous usurpation fitting exactly with the usurpation that preceded it and not a necessary usurpation missing and not a extra usurpation to be had — then we know we are well past the exit called soft tyranny and are entering into the city called absolute tyranny and absolute Despotism.

My friends, war is being made upon the citizenry of this country. Now, it can be a war where the causalities are only on the side of the citizenry or it can be a war that finds the Despots making war visited with a resistance that they find disconcerting.

A Law Quote A Day Keeps The R2Kt Virus Away

“For it cannot be shown that any part of that power which magistrates had under the Old Testament is repealed under the new, neither can any convincing reason be brought, why should it be of narrower extent now or then. Are not blasphemies, heresies and errors dishonorable to God, and destructive unto souls as well now as of old?”

George Hutcheson — 17th Century Reformed Theologian
The Gospel of John — pp. 158

A Law Quote A Day Keeps The R2Kt Virus Away

Christ frees us from the law, but not the Judicial Punishment

” For 1.) If there be no bodily punishment to be inflicted on false teachers and blasphemers, then must Christ by his blood repeal all those laws in the Old Testament; but the Scripture shows us all our parts of Christian liberty in these places of Scripture, Ti.2:14; Rom. 14:4; I Thess. 1:10; Gal. 3:13; Gal. 1:4; Col. 1:13; I Joh. 4:18; Acts 15:10-11; Heb. 4:14, 16; Heb. 10:19,21,22; Col. 2:15-16; 2 Cor. 3:13, 17, 19; Jam. 4:12; Rom. 14:4; Act. 4:9; Act.5:29; 1 Cor. 7:23; Matt. 23:8,9,10; Matt. 15:9; and elsewhere; in all which places nothing is hinted of the false teachers patent under the seal of the blood of the eternal Covenant, that he is freed from the Magistrates sword, though he destroy millions of souls.”

Samuel Rutherford
A Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience etc. — pp. 233-234

Note how careful that Rutherford is in defining liberty of conscience. Rutherford does not allow the catch phrase “liberty of conscience,” to be used as a “get out of jail free card” for every licentious behavior imaginable. Liberty of conscience does exist as the passages above indicate but it can not be invoked in order to overturn the clear teaching of God’s law word serving as a standard for social order and the Magistrate. Liberty of Conscience can not be invoked in order to overturn either the 2nd use of the law of to ignore the third use of the law. I go to ends to point this out because often when you deliberate with the R2Kt lads they are screaming “liberty of conscience,” as a garlic mantra to ward of the Dracula of God’s hated vampire law.

A Law Quote A Day Keeps The R2Kt Virus Away

“… Our Adversaries are obliged to give us precept, promise or godly practice, why a moral sin forbidden and severely punished in the Old Testament, should yet remain a Moral sin in the New Testament, and yet not be punishable by men or churches.”

Samuel Rutherford
A Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience — pp. 332