Rev. Tristan A. Emmanuel
Sept. 17, 2001

The Office
An increasing dilemma for pastoral ministry in the post-modern world is inculcating a proper view of office. Egalitarian sensibilities have produced two very dangerous tendencies among the churched. It has manifested itself in rampant individualism; the assumption that we are all equals has led some Christians to reject the idea of mutual accountability. In contradistinction to this tendency is the ironic development of co-dependency, the belief that I can't function as a Christian without someone directing every facet of my life. And so, while one rejects the legitimate ministry of Christ through men, the other replaces Christ with a man. Both are dangerous, both radically undermine the authority of Christ, and both are indicative of a cultural antipathy with office.

The solution is found in the Biblical view of office. Office has reference to a calling, a position. It is not an inherent dignity or virtue. As pastors, men function as Christ's representative to the flock under their direct charge, not because they are more dignified or innately holier than the flock, but because they've been set aside by God's call. It is God's call that grants the dignity.

The foundation of this doctrine is Christ Himself. Christ is the Chief Pastor. He is prophet, priest, and king. In Christ we not only have the dignity of office, but the inherent dignity of real virtue or innate holiness. Christ can be the Prophet, Priest, King, and Chief Shepherd simply because He is wholly unequal to us. He is in a higher class because He is holy. He is holy because He is the God/Man.

However, Christ's presence is not immediate. He resides in heaven, and as such He is not physically present to administer the charge of the church. Nevertheless, His care of the church is no less effective because Christ, by His Spirit, calls men to function in an official capacity to represent His person. The elder/pastor, is a “post-type” of Christ and as such is the conduit through which Christ personally works to sanctify the congregation.
 
The New Testament gives countless examples of how Christ worked directly through the agency of men. Paul speaks of Christ working in him: “But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb and called me though His grace, to reveal His Son in me...” (Gal. 1:15-16). And, “...for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles...” (Gal. 2:8). And, “to this end I also labor, striving according to His working which works in me mightily” (Col. 1:29).

What is stated about the apostles can also be stated concerning the post-apostolic elder:

The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed: 2 Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly; 3 nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock; and when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that does not fade away. (1 Pet. 5:1-4)

The challenge of the post-modern pastor is to instill this understanding of office within the congregation. Christians need to understand that the pastor functions as Christ to them in his official capacity. Such an understanding will increase the majesty and spiritual mystery of preaching, personal shepherding, and every other thing the pastor accomplishes officially on behalf of Christ. Indeed, this should be true of all the elders in the church, not simply the minister of the word (as our text in Peter makes clear, all the elders are representatives of Christ). Unfortunately this is not the norm in the Church. 

The Function(s)
Ironically this dearth of effective leadership can be traced beyond the boundaries of our post-modern culture. Certainly the influences of egalitarianism have aided this trend, but interestingly enough, traditional ways of looking at the eldership have contributed also. The historic division between a “ruling” elder and a “teaching” elder, although understandable, is in the opinion of this author a major contributor in the break down of the office. It has tended to mitigate the concept of parity between elders, and it has done this by reducing the Biblical qualifications for the office. To be fair to history, the traditional division did not result in an automatic deconstruction. Many ruling elders were fine shepherds and equal in competence to the “minister of the word.” However, although the original framers had altruistic motives, they did not foresee that such an arbitrary division would, within the context of an egalitarian culture, catapult the officers to the status of an advisory board, nothing more and a whole lot less than the Biblical ideal.

The epistles of Timothy and Titus provide no theological justification for the historic division. The Pastoral Epistles describes only one office, not two within the eldership. When Paul charges Timothy to appoint men to oversee the church in Ephesus, he speaks of training men so that they might “teach” well, to teach that they might “rule” well, and to rule that they might be effective “shepherds.” Throughout the epistles, the relationship of ruling to teaching is inseparable: 

“As I urged you when I went into Macedonia-remain in Ephesus that you may charge some that they teach no other doctrine...”(1 Tim. 1:3). “A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach...”(1 Tim. 3:2). “These things command and teach” (1 Tim. 4:11). “And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). “And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach...” (2 Tim. 2:24). “...Holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict” (Titus 1:9). 

In all five references the men being charged to teach are men being appointed to the office of elder. Not once does Paul entertain the notion that men may be appointed to the office of elder in isolation from teaching responsibilities. The Scriptures are silent about a second-class elder, one who is without the aptitude to teach. Teaching is an inexorable function of the office according to the epistles. It is an outworking of ruling.

The theological impetus for this view comes from an understanding of 2 Tim. 2:14-15. In this text Paul is calling elders to be scholars of the Holy Scriptures. Paul says, “Remind them of these things, charging them before the Lord not to strive about words to no profit, to the ruin of the hearers. Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” 

Verse 15 specifically commands Timothy to be a scholar of Scripture so that he might be a righteous judge. Judging is clearly a function of ruling. But what concerns us is Paul's appeal to Timothy to be an exemplar of the model elder. Train the men by your example, says Paul. Show them by example how to function as an elder and do this by your competency in Scripture. Consequently, ruling necessarily involves knowledge of the truth, discernment, competence in Scripture, and scholarship in Scripture. An elder rules by correctly interpreting and teaching the Scriptures.

It is asked then: why do we nominate and ordain men to such a high office who are either unable or unwilling to teach? How is it possible to rule the church of the Lord Jesus Christ if one is either unable or unwilling to rightly divide the word of truth? How can one rule effectively if one does not have a competent level of knowledge? Is it any wonder that the church of the Lord Jesus Christ is in decline when rampant incompetence is the accepted norm for the modern elder? Do we really believe that Christ will honor a procedure that appoints men who are not qualified to represent Him? Is it not our cultural fixation with egalitarianism that has produced this dearth? Have we not deconstructed this most preeminent of earthly offices? Is the historic divide justifiable?

The historic division between a teaching elder and ruling elder appears to be an arbitrary division rather than a Biblical principle. Such a division has assisted in deconstructing the parity that must exist between elders. And it has done so because it leaves the impression that “ruling,” is the sole jurisdiction of one, while “teaching” is the sole objective of the other. Therefore, most ruling elders are ignorant of their catechisms, confessions, and, worse yet, the Bible, while most teaching-elders believe their only function is to preach and leave all private family shepherding to the “ruling” elders. 

We've created a false dichotomy. These are functions of one office not two. They are not mutually exclusive categories. The parity that exists between elders is not something put on; it's not magical, or a sacramental power that overcomes men at ordination. It is established by the fact that ALL of THEM have exemplified a basic level of proficiency in ALL the functions germane to the office prior to being ordained, and not after. 

But clearly, the most indelible evidence that only one office is in view is the categorical insistence according to Paul that those who are called are called to teach. This function is explicitly stated five times throughout the Pastoral Epistles. It is at our peril that we ignore this most fundamental function. Our motto ought to be, “One office, many functions.” For parity among the elders to be guarded we must insist that there is only one office. For the dignity of the office to be maintained, we must insist on a basic level of competence in all the functions of the office. If we don't insist on these principles we will continue to witness a dearth of effective leadership in the church.

A Practical Division, not an Official Division 
Notwithstanding, a practical division of labor (not office) is Biblically warranted. The simple fact is some men are more capable in some areas than others. Paul says to Timothy, “Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine” (1 Tim. 5:17). This text is typically appealed to, to justify the practice of paying a pastor for his full-time labors.
 
However, it is not simply the “teaching-elder” who is worthy of double honor; it is any elder who rules well. Laboring in word and doctrine is just one way an elder rules well. Some may be naturally gifted at administration, counseling, catechism training, etc. All must have a basic level of competence in the various functions of the office, yet some, because of providential arrangement, will excel in certain areas more than others. We set apart those who excel for that unique task. They are not ordained to a unique task (i.e., a ruling elder, a shepherding elder, an administrative elder, a counseling elder). We don't create a different office; we simply recognize their unique gifts. We give them double honor. Thus, those elders who labor in word and doctrine are the ones especially set apart to preach the word of the Lord Jesus Christ because they have revealed an exceptional aptitude in teaching, but this ought not exclude the others from teaching. 

We distinguish those who excel in a given area with double honor, yet in no way do we diminish the parity that exists between all elders. All must be apt to teach, although not all must be exceptional teachers/preachers.

Furthermore, this emphasizes the need for a strong plurality of elders in the local church. Recognizing that a division of function and not office gives greater impetus for the development of a strong plurality of elders. One man is incapable of adequately fulfilling the needs of the local congregation. Even though he must fulfill the objectives, he cannot do it alone. The simple fact is that the needs of the many (congregation) cannot be satisfied by the ability of the one (pastor/elder). Basic practicality necessitates a session of elders in any given congregation to divide up the labor among them. Effective shepherding demands this. The Bible establishes this as the pattern of the early church. Therefore, plurality of elders in the local congregation is an absolute requirement 

The Government
Thus far the issues discussed come to their fullest expression in the government of the local and regional church. Because all elders are representatives of Christ and that this is the objective basis for parity while the evidence of competency is the subjective basis, no single man can function independently in the church of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Biblical view of church government fundamentally rejects autonomous rule; this is the essential difference between Presbyterianism and Congregationalism/Prelacy.
 
However, not only is it impossible for one man to function, as the Lone Ranger in the church, but also it is fundamentally condemned. Numerous Scripture passages establish that the rule for all government is: submit one to another in the Lord (Eph. 5:20). Any view of church government, of office, and of function, which seeks to be Biblical must come to grips with the implications of mutual submission and accountability in Christ.

No man has the Biblical warrant to act independently in the institutional church. Independency in the local setting inevitably leads to tyranny, abuse, and idolatry. The congregation, intentionally or unintentionally, will inevitably replace the great Shepherd Christ for their pastor. Such order of government thus becomes idolatrous at the root. We are called to shepherd the congregation in the name of Christ and to point them to Christ. We dare not conceive of ministry in the name of man — nor point them to any other man than Christ.
 
Furthermore, the temptation to control and manipulate the lives of the people we shepherd in such a setting becomes irresistible. Where man is concerned, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and the highest office in the land, the office of elder, can become the greatest instrument of tyranny because so many believers have exchanged the great spiritual shepherding that comes from Christ for the personal warmth of their pastor/counselor.
 
A strong and godly plurality of elders will provide the essential bulwark against this tendency. A homogenous session, where the elders are equal and equally competent, is the Biblical solution to the type of tyranny present in many modern churches. A plurality of elders secures the greatest amount of Biblical adjudication for the greatest number of members in the local congregation. No one man can do the work of ministry alone. The simple fact is that Christ left the regular administration of the church in the hands of elders, not an elder. “To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons...” (Phil. 1:1). A session, then, is fundamental to a proper philosophy of ministry.

Closely related to the idea of local accountability is the idea of regional accountability. One of the damaging results of individualism is the idea of being an island to oneself. This idea has translated itself to the local church community. But the idea that we can be self-sufficient and independent is out of sync with the inorganic unity of the body of Christ. No single congregation is the church of Christ alone. We are part of a body, intricately and spiritually bound together. 

Unfortunately, this island to oneself mentality has infected the modern church, as well. It has crept into the church in the most ironic of ways. The very fact that there are “Independent Reformed Churches” or “Independent Presbyterian Churches” is abundant proof that we don't understand, or worse don't believe, in catholicity. 

If a man cannot function as the sole elder in a congregation, is it not equally erroneous to exist as an independent church? When we are called to submit to one to another in the Lord is it simply referring to the local setting? What is the fundamental impetus behind the inorganic unity of the body of Christ if it is not universal submission? Is our unity simply a matter of a profession of faith, or are we not bound to submit to one another in Christ? If Christ is our head, and we are united to one another in Christ, then isn't submissiveness the fundamental evidence of this unity? And since the body of Christ is universal should we not be vowing to submit to one another as an entire body, and not just to certain members? Clearly, a church cannot ultimately function in spiritual unity with the body if it is independent. Under such a rubric everything eventually collapses, especially church discipline.

There is another aspect that needs to be mentioned. Because no one man may have ultimate authority in the church of the Lord Jesus Christ, no single session may have ultimate authority over the church either. Unfortunately, in reaction to some liberal Presbyteries/Classis, certain Reformed communities have exchanged one form of tyranny for another. To guard against the abuses of “Presbyterianism” they have exalted the local session to the status of a “Presbytery.” They've done this by granting ultimate ratifying power to the local session/consistory and relegated an advisory role to the Presbytery/Classis under the rubric of “pious advice.”

But in doing so they haven't solved the problem. They've simply exchanged one tyranny for another, one from the bottom up for one from the top down. However, there is one essential difference with this neo-Presbyterianism. Under the new system, tyranny can happen much quicker than the under the old, because all that needs to change is the local session, rather than an entire presbytery. This is especially true if the local church has a term policy for elders. In this setting the congregation can become subject to politicization much quicker than under a perpetual structure, and since the local session/consistory is the highest court, there is no redress available beyond the local body.
 
But the real issue is that this neo-Presbyterianism is not grounded in Biblical precedent. Even the inspired apostles submitted themselves to the process of the Presbytery. And if apostles submitted to such a system, what local session has the right to disregard this pattern? No church is an island unto itself. If we are truly a church of the Lord Jesus Christ then we must not only seek unity with like-minded churches, but also insist on loving unity through the vehicle of godly submission in Christ.

The Mission
The Biblical concepts of office and government aren't the only issues that have suffered a set back the mission of the pastoral ministry has as well. Perhaps it would help to clarify what that mission is. The mission of pastoral ministry is very simple: to make disciples of men. Now, although the mission is quite simple, its scope is exhaustive in its extent. Christ will have nothing less than the “nations as his inheritance” (Ps. 2).

No evangelistic strategy will work without the grand scope of the universal church in mind. Christ is building His kingdom. His kingdom is the church-inorganic, and the mission of the church-institutional (the officers along with the members) is to make disciples of the nations bound together doctrinally in the church. This is the heart of pastoral ministry.

However, this grand mission has experienced a personal set back in our day. You will ask how so? How can one make this claim when everywhere churches are developing strategies and programs to evangelize the world? It is precisely here where the set back takes root. As it stands a “program” or a “strategy” to evangelize is fine. They are simply tools in the hands of men. The problem is that in many cases the tool has overshadowed the men who use them. Tools like “evangelism explosion” are quite helpful, but when the tool becomes the central pivot for evangelism the focus is lost. 

Christ sends men, not books, pamphlets, or programs. Certainly these tools are helpful; this is not in dispute; but it is not programs or strategies that God personally commissions. He sends men to influence men. He sends men, set apart and empowered by the Spirit of God, to impact the lives of other men. In fact, God uses men to sanctify other men. 

For example in 1 Corinthians, Paul defends the legitimacy of a mixed marriage on the basis of “sanctification.” He argues that the believer may remain with the unbelieving spouse if they so desire because the believer sanctifies the unbeliever, “the unbelieving spouse is sanctified by the believer” (1 Cor. 7:12). In Ephesians, Paul says that husbands are a type of Christ to their wives. The underlying implication is that husbands sanctify their wives, just as Christ sanctified the church (Eph. 5:22). What makes it possible for individual men and women to have such an influence? 

Paul speaks of the Christians ability to sanctify. However, the basis of the sanctification does not reside within the man. Just as the dignity of the office of elder is not based on innate holiness, neither is our ability as believers to influence others germane to our nature. Our ability to influence comes by our ability to communicate and practice the truth. Sanctification comes by truth. 

Christ said, “Sanctify them by your truth. Your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world” (Jn. 17:17-18). Christ sanctified the world in His office of prophet. He came to do and speak the will of His Father. Therefore, sanctification comes by knowledge of the truth (actually it comes by the Holy Spirit applying truth to a believer, but His work is never in isolation from the recipients understanding). It is the word of God that sanctifies a man, and this word comes by the instrumentality of men empowered by the Holy Spirit. 

This is why a godly spouse married to an unbeliever can sanctify them. This is why husbands can sanctify their wives. This is why elders can and must sanctify their congregation. This is why God sends men and not programs. It is men, and not programs that are empowered by God. It is men, and not programs, that can persuasively and powerfully communicate that truth.

Passionate Preaching 
Which leads us to an important secondary point. If we must endeavor to teach the Word of God in such a way that it influences and sanctifies people, then as Paul said in 1 Corinthians 2:4, this must be done in the demonstration of the Spirit and of power. Obviously there is a historical divide between Paul's meaning and my point. Paul clearly demonstrated the veracity of his teaching with charismatic gifts. These gifts have ceased with the establishment of the new administration. However, the Spirit does energize the fervor and passion of the man that God sends to proclaim His Word. 

Preaching is, therefore, a powerful/passionate exposition and application of the Word of God from the pulpit. The message of salvation comes by men charged to urgently preach the gospel. We are dying men preaching to dying people; therefore, we must preach every sermon as if it were our last. Implicit in this statement is the idea of passion. Preaching must be many things, it must be unapologetic, bold, clear, thoroughly Biblical, but it must also be passionate. The urgency of the message preached must not only be in the words, but in the voice, in the mannerisms, in the inflection and tone, in the velocity and volume. Power must be demonstrated not only in the content but also in the style.

One of the disconcerting tendencies among “Reformed” preachers is the dry and clinical manner with which they deliver their sermons. While they muse about respecting the word and work to achieve a sanctified pulpit presence, while they drone on in muted tones, speak with dis-flection rather than inflection, while they restrain every rising of anointed passion in a desperate attempt to shield the people from the “evils” of human emotion, while they READ and deliver a clinical rendering of the glories of Calvinism, expound on the profundities of the history of redemption, point people to the apex of all prophesy, that great mystery kept secret from the foundation of time, but now manifestly revealed in the humiliation and passion of the God/Man Himself, the average man in the pew falls dead asleep. In their attempt to be somber and sober preachers, they ironically commit the greatest act of arrogance, they draw attention to their “brilliant” intellect and by-pass the opportunity to engage the average man. Their dull and mundane approach is in a manner of speaking, drawing attention to how bad a preacher they really are. And although no one will admit it, many are wondering if God actually called them to begin with.

Perhaps the “Reformed” preacher of today can't be accused of pulpitering, but he can be accused of a greater sin — being deathly boring! Is it any wonder that so many evangelicals are tuned into the likes of John MacArthur, and Josh McDowell? We scoff and chide at their contentless preaching, but our sanctimonious Reformed hand gladding and backslapping is to our shame. While we become euphoric over the redemptive-historical, the influence of dispensational theology is on a rise all to the credit of the orators Dallas Theological Seminary and the like have produced. Being entertaining is not a sin, and it is time we realized it. It does not discredit the Scripture. Certainly content can never be sacrificed in an attempt to be stylish, but content shouldn't be at war with style. Style and content are not mutually exclusive categories they are complimentary disciplines necessary to urgently proclaim the Word of God. Unless the Reformed address and redress their pretentious homiletical delivery, the status quo will continue; dispenstionalism will continue to maintain its stronghold on the minds and affections of evangelicals in North America — and many undiscerning Reformed will be caught up with it.

The Goal
And finally the goal of pastoral ministry has suffered also. It probably seems strange to speak of a goal in differentiation from the mission. If the mission is to make disciples of men, then shouldn't that be our goal? Certainly making a disciple is a goal, but it is not an end in and of itself. Far too many have made the personal salvation of man the high point of pastoral ministry. Certainly man's regeneration and salvation is a high doctrine, but it is not the end of theology. In the final analysis, the greatest objective of pastoral ministry is the worship of God.
 
Man's chief end is to glorify and enjoy God forever; therefore, a thoroughly Biblical philosophy of ministry must make as its ultimate aim the glory of God in every area life, most especially in corporate worship. However, very sincere and Reformed-minded Christians have mitigated this grand goal for a more moderate “seeker-sensitive” one. They have adopted the post-modern affixation with feelings, ambiance, and comfort; worship in their setting has become truly altruistic; sincerely wanting to attract the man of today's cultural-milieu, they have adopted a man-centered approach to worship because their main aim in corporate worship is the comfort level of the un-churched participants.

Worship is not about man, and certainly not about his comfort level — it is about God. God is the main event; in fact He is the only attraction. Corporate worship is about acknowledging God; it is about expressing our great admiration, adoration, approbation, and appreciation for the One Eternal Triune Creator Savior Sovereign. The problem with every form of contemporary worship is that it adulterates the purity and spirituality of real God-centered worship. It places man's concerns, desires, wishes, sensitivities on equally footing with God's desires, wishes, and commands. 

God has not been silent about how He wants to be worshipped. And this is what it all really boils down to: God wants to be worshipped the way He wants to be worshipped, anything less is idol worship. God is not interested in well-intentioned, yet misdirected expressions of modern worship. The apologetic of many who defend a seeker-sensitive approach is that God will accept their worship because in it there is a freedom of expression, of individuality, as opposed to formalism, and this necessarily produces greater “sincerity” on the part of the participants.
 
Post-modern concepts of worship are akin to the sincere, yet misdirected, efforts of a husband who buys a bowling ball for his wife as a sign of his love for her. Would this gift accurately convey to his wife his undivided love and devotion for her? Well, if his wife had repeatedly stated that what she most desired from him were words of encouragement and praise; that she wanted unsolicited words in the context of a quite and romantic dinner in which he gently and clearly relayed his undivided love for her, her great and inestimable value to him, then the answer is no, a bowling ball just won't do. In fact, in some cases, depending on whether its an anniversary or birthday the sight of a bowling ball might sender her off to the bedroom in a fit of tears. Would anyone accuse this misguided man of being insincere? 
 
Post-modern worship is very much like that; it is sincere (generally more entertainment driven than sincere), but always missing the mark. Real worship must include sincere motives, but it must also conform to the wishes and decrees of God. In that sense, God is no different then the wife in our story. He is a person who has clearly communicated what He desires from His people. He has repeatedly stated that He will be worshipped in spirit and in truth, nothing more nothing less. Only there is a categorical difference: God won't run away in a fit of tears. God will hold him liable who takes His name in vain.

When we introduce foreign means of praise, imprudent measures of order, when anything is pasted off as sufficient for the worship of God as long as it is sincere, we've adulterated corporate worship and we worship Him in vain. God expects a Biblical level of formality. God expects certain precepts of praise and order to distinguish our worship from pagan festivals, rock-concerts, and the David Letterman Show. Sincerity matters not one iota if our form of expression does not conform to the God's expectations.

Sacred-sensitive Worship Is the Great Ideal
To remedy the problem of post-modern influences on corporate worship, as pastors we need to uphold and promote the ideals of God-centered worship. While reaching out to the community in evangelistic zeal is necessary, and making disciples of Christ is very important, our goal, as pastors, will involve inculcating our flock with a sense of urgency, majesty, and mystery about corporate worship. The Lord's Day ought to be the high point of our ministry every week. In doing so we will rescue office and the tasks associated with that call from the clutches of egalitarianism and deconstruction. 

As pastors we need an acute realization of the great and awesome responsibility that has been bestowed to us. It is crucial that we are convicted of the transcendence of our office. Pastors are the fulcrum of public worship, not because of innate virtue or dignity, but because we represent Christ personally. When we stand before the congregation on Sunday morning to lead them in the worship of our Triune God, we stand as Christ before them. And unless this truth has a compelling and pressing grip upon us, we will not succeed in the ministry. No greater calling is there, no greater office is there, than the office of elder/pastor. We are guardians of a sacred power and trust, and it must be our life's ambition to do nothing else but to lead the congregation into worship.

We call and escort them to the throne of Grace. We announce the presence of the High and Mighty One in their presence. We teach them to be filled with awe and wonder, to tremble in the presence of the Holy One of Israel, and we point them to the examples of Isaiah and John. We warn them of presumptuous worship and remind them of their creaturely status. We lead them in the godly confession of sin, and pronounce God's gracious pardon upon them. We remind them of the way of gratitude and at the high point of their communion with God, we blast the trumpet and unsheathe the double-edge sword of the gospel; quite literally we become the mouth of God. And when it is all said and done, when the congregation has heard God speak, we bless them in the name, that name above all names, we bless them in the name of Christ.
 
There is nothing quite like it! No amount of pomp and circumstance, nothing man does can compare to being in the majestic presence of God. On any given Sunday, power, dominion, and majesty surround us, and there is no human experience that can replicate it.

We must teach our people to desire this day above all else. We must teach our people to prepare for this day, to make this their sacred trust. We must instill within them, to the best of our ability a holy obsession for corporate worship with God. Just as a man's desire for his wife grows with age, so must their love and delight for God increase with every Sunday.
 
The power exercised in us is a living, active, and wholly divine power. It is God in us. May God give us strength to shepherd the flock He purchased with His blood as we face head on the deconstructive influences of a post-modern world.