Are Fauxhawks the Modern Equivalent of Not Inspecting the Residue in Post-Sneeze Handkerchiefs?
Are Fauxhawks the Modern Equivalent of Not Inspecting the Residue in Post-Sneeze Handkerchiefs?
February 15, 2012
Before my colleagues launch into 1 Tim 3 proper, one further thought comes to mind, provoked by an email from a friendly correspondent: why is it that character is so low on the agenda in the modern church when it comes to choosing officers?
Ironically, Samuel Miller might be a help to us here at the very point where he is probably weakest. It is striking how much of Miller's discussion of behaviour in which a minister must not indulge is focused on cleanliness: no spitting in public places, no analysis of snot in handkerchiefs, no paring of nails and flicking of finger residue in polite company, no combing of hair and inspection of the comb in a social setting, no picking of skin and scabs when others are present etc. There is a very real sense in which large parts of Miller's understanding of character do not directly reflect biblical priorities but rather the nineteenth century preoccupation with personal hygiene.
This is a reminder that understanding of character can very often simply mimic the values of the wider world. That is not an altogether bad thing: Paul speaks of being of good reputation with outsiders which presumably connects to at least some conventional behaviour in society at large. But it also has limits.
Some years ago, a person I knew in the ministry was secretly living in a way that was highly inappropriate for a Christian. When challenged on this, his response was always `But when I preach, unbelievers are often converted and believers are always blessed.' In other words, his private sin was really of no account because of the favourable results of his public ministry.
It is becoming a commonplace in some circles to use success (i.e., numbers of conversions, size of church) as a means of pre-empting or answering criticisms of content and lifestyle. That is rather like the modern equivalent of personal hygiene: entrepreneurial success, innovation, appeal to youth culture, the ability to harness technology, the use of striking aesthetics, and numerical growth are all things which the world holds in high regard. Like personal hygiene, none of these things are bad in themselves; indeed, as with hygiene, many, if not all, of them might be highly desirable; but to make them function in effect as gauges of character is highly dangerous, especially when character is so important in establishing who is qualified to lead the church.
I suspect we do still have a concern for character today. The problem is that our understanding of character has little or nothing to do with that of which Paul is speaking in 1 Timothy.
Ironically, Samuel Miller might be a help to us here at the very point where he is probably weakest. It is striking how much of Miller's discussion of behaviour in which a minister must not indulge is focused on cleanliness: no spitting in public places, no analysis of snot in handkerchiefs, no paring of nails and flicking of finger residue in polite company, no combing of hair and inspection of the comb in a social setting, no picking of skin and scabs when others are present etc. There is a very real sense in which large parts of Miller's understanding of character do not directly reflect biblical priorities but rather the nineteenth century preoccupation with personal hygiene.
This is a reminder that understanding of character can very often simply mimic the values of the wider world. That is not an altogether bad thing: Paul speaks of being of good reputation with outsiders which presumably connects to at least some conventional behaviour in society at large. But it also has limits.
Some years ago, a person I knew in the ministry was secretly living in a way that was highly inappropriate for a Christian. When challenged on this, his response was always `But when I preach, unbelievers are often converted and believers are always blessed.' In other words, his private sin was really of no account because of the favourable results of his public ministry.
It is becoming a commonplace in some circles to use success (i.e., numbers of conversions, size of church) as a means of pre-empting or answering criticisms of content and lifestyle. That is rather like the modern equivalent of personal hygiene: entrepreneurial success, innovation, appeal to youth culture, the ability to harness technology, the use of striking aesthetics, and numerical growth are all things which the world holds in high regard. Like personal hygiene, none of these things are bad in themselves; indeed, as with hygiene, many, if not all, of them might be highly desirable; but to make them function in effect as gauges of character is highly dangerous, especially when character is so important in establishing who is qualified to lead the church.
I suspect we do still have a concern for character today. The problem is that our understanding of character has little or nothing to do with that of which Paul is speaking in 1 Timothy.
