Providing for one's household

 Legalism is a funny thing.

In the Christian context, "legalism" is the creation and enforcement of rules which are not grounded in the Bible. We often think of the legalist as a person who creates and imposes rules on others, but there is another legalist who is much more difficult to expose and reform. That is the legalist of the tender conscience, who sees no room for grace in God's Law and constantly fears he has fallen short of its measure. Either through reading the Bible as a stricter taskmaster than it is, or by falling prey to legalistic preaching, this Christian often seeks, but rarely finds, assurance of salvation.

Since shortly after ordination, I have served as a doctrinal correspondent for the Orthodox Presbyterian Church's website. People submit questions at opc.org, and one or the other of us is assigned to answer it. While nearly all of the questions we get are about Christian doctrine or how to exegete some point of Scripture, many of them have, as a subtext, a concern as to whether one has fallen short of God's commands. What follows is one such recent example.

  I’ve been asked to respond to this question you posted to the Orthodox Presbyterian Church’s website:

In 1 Timothy 5:8, the apostle Paul stated, "But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."
Would this passage apply to a man unable to provide health insurance for his family? The man is able to provide for the basic necessaries of life such as housing, food, and clothing, but doesn't make enough money to provide for health insurance. Should such a man consider himself worse than an unbeliever?

  This is a case where context is extremely important. 1 Timothy 5:8 is just one sentence in a much longer passage which, for the sake of clarity, I quote in part:

1Tim. 5:3  Honor widows who are truly widows.

1Tim. 5:4 But if a widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn to show godliness to their own household and to make some return to their parents, for this is pleasing in the sight of God.

1Tim. 5:5 She who is truly a widow, left all alone, has set her hope on God and continues in supplications and prayers night and day,

1Tim. 5:6 but she who is self-indulgent is dead even while she lives.

1Tim. 5:7 Command these things as well, so that they may be without reproach.

1Tim. 5:8 But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

1Tim. 5:9  Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband,

1Tim. 5:10 and having a reputation for good works: if she has brought up children, has shown hospitality, has washed the feet of the saints, has cared for the afflicted, and has devoted herself to every good work.

1Tim. 5:11 But refuse to enroll younger widows, for when their passions draw them away from Christ, they desire to marry

1Tim. 5:12 and so incur condemnation for having abandoned their former faith.

1Tim. 5:13 Besides that, they learn to be idlers, going about from house to house, and not only idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying what they should not.

1Tim. 5:14 So I would have younger widows marry, bear children, manage their households, and give the adversary no occasion for slander.

1Tim. 5:15 For some have already strayed after Satan.

1Tim. 5:16 If any believing woman has relatives who are widows, let her care for them. Let the church not be burdened, so that it may care for those who are truly widows.

  In 1 Timothy 5:1-2, Paul introduces his subject by talking about our 5th Commandment duty to honor every person according their several statuses in life and their relations to us (see the Westminster Shorter Catechism questions 63-64, https://opc.org/sc.html). In 1 Timothy 5:17-21, he talks about how to relate to elders in the Church and those who persist in sin. It’s important to see that Paul is dealing here primarily with how we are to keep the 5th Commandment by treating everyone around us appropriately.

  In 1 Timothy 5:3-16, Paul talks about the Church’s duty to widows in the Church who do not have relatives who can provide for them (1 Tim 5:3, 8, 16). Apparently, the Church in Ephesus (1 Tim 1:3) kept a roll of widows the deacons would take care of (1 Tim 5:9), and Paul wanted to help Timothy make sure the congregation’s finances would not be overwhelmed (1 Tim 5:16). Indeed, he goes so far as to say that widows who can still remarry ought to: explicitly to guard themselves against idleness but implicitly to not burden the Church (1 Tim 5:11-15). So the context of 1 Timothy 5:8 is that Paul is telling Timothy that he and his congregation must be faithful to care for those who truly are needy; from that follows the necessary implication that Christians who are able to take care of needy relatives must also do so. (These are very important principles for any congregation with a healthy diaconate. My first ordained service was as a deacon, and this passage helped guide our work.)

  As in 1 Timothy 5:11-15, in 1 Timothy 5:8 Paul is not addressing ability as much as he is willingness. In other words, the man who is able to provide for a needy widow in his near or extended family (and it seems to me Paul particularly has in mind a man’s own mother or mother-in-law) but will not has denied the faith by refusing to carry out the 5th Commandment in one of its most obvious applications. Lest that seems a harsh judgment, we can make a comparison to the 7th Commandment (“thou shalt not commit adultery”), where the parallel sin would be to hire prostitutes. I believe most Christians would agree that such a person is “worse than an unbeliever” because he calls himself a Christian while refusing to repent of a remarkably obvious and heinous sin.

  I write all of that in order to say that I believe the premises of your question are incorrect. A man who is doing his best to provide for his family but falls short has demonstrated he is willing even though he is not able. Just as a godly widow who neither could provide for herself nor had family members who could help her could go to her Church’s deacons for help, so a family suffering from financial hardship should go to their Church’s deacons for help. This is right, Godly and Biblical. I am grateful to the Lord for making the office of deacon an ordinance for his Church; it has always been dear to me because it is a tangible expression of God’s love for his people.

  While this has been lenghty, I hope it’s been helpful to you. Please feel free to follow up if anything I’ve written requires clarification. I pray our God who provided his own Son as the atonement for our sins will provide you and yours with all that is needful for this life.

Après cela, le déluge

This brief notice from WORLD magazine signals what could very well be the beginning of the end of the way of life assumed by countless evangelical congregations across these United States. The vast majority of Churches are small (under 100 members) and entirely self-supporting; even those which are part of denominations rarely receive regular budget support from broader ecclesial bodies. The clergy housing allowance tax exemption is a little-appreciated mechanism by which they're able to stretch their dollars a little bit further.

The housing tax exemption evolved as a way to level the playing field between Churches which provide parsonages for their pastors, and ones which expect the pastor to provide for his own housing. In the first case, the Church owns the pastor's house, and so the government does not tax it. In the second case, the monies paid to the pastor to enable him to pay rent or a mortgage (and the costs of maintaining a domicile) are not taxed. If this ruling in Wisconsin is upheld on appeal, Protestant clergy could lose their right to the housing tax exemption and congregations would have to have to pay them that much more to compensate for the additional tax burden. Yes, that would be only a few thousand dollars more a year. However, given the extremely thin margins of most Church budgets, that additional tax burden could easily put a full-time pastor out of the reach of many small congregations.

I've written at length on the implications of such a development for the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in my "Manifesto for the OPC." This court case may be the chink in the conservative Churches' dam against the rising flood of legal hostility to the cause of Christ. Remember: Noah built the ark before the rains began.

Some belated aggregating

I've had some webpages bookmarked for a while now to share with my vast worldwide audience, so it's well past time for me to clear out the backlog. If these articles share a theme, it's that they each introduced me to new arguments which made me think more deeply on a topic than I had before.

While the Presbyterian Church in America lacks a denominational magazine, they have a close substitute in the byFaith website. "Prisoners in the Pew" documents how some congregations are working to uncover and remediate domestic abuse of all sorts. It provides food for thought for sessions of all presbyterian traditions.

"Prejudice and the Blaine Amendments" was published a few weeks before the U.S. Supreme Court released its decision in Trinity Lutheran of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer. (This is the playground resurfacing case.) Philip Hamburger does admirable historiographical work to demonstrate that amendments to state constitutions which now appear to have been intended to require government neutrality in religious matters were in fact designed to institutionalize the then-dominant forms of liberal cultural Christianity. In our day, that has effectively morphed into the institutionalization of an anti-ecclesial bias.

In a two-part review of the book Executing Grace, James R. Rogers carefully examines Christian arguments against the death penalty and sets forth a Biblical argument for its judicious use. From a redemptive-historical framework, he shows that death is an appropriate sanction for the attempt to extinguish God's image by killing an image-bearer.

These aren't short essays, but they're well worth your time if you'd like to think more carefully about these issues.