SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Articles and Sermons : The Expense of an Offense by Robert Wurtz II

Print Thread (PDF)

PosterThread
sermonindex
Moderator



Joined: 2002/12/11
Posts: 39795
Canada

Online!
 The Expense of an Offense by Robert Wurtz II


Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? (1Corinthians 9:7ff)


Dealing with 'bad spirits'


My former pastor D.L. Burch had his own way of describing behaviors similar to what Paul dealt with at Corinth. He used to often say, 'one thing I will not do is pet a bad spirit.' He was not using the word 'spirit' in the Charismatic sense, rather, it was his way of recognizing when a person(s) had an attitude. He would not cooperate with a person who displayed a bad spirit that behaved unreasonably. In 35 years of ministry I never once saw him or his dear wife display a bad spirit. I never saw him or her 'bulled up'. I never once saw him act in a way that put the flock in an uneasy frame. Why? He practiced what he preached. He knew that attitudes have no place in ministry. I think of the Proverb, He that is slow to anger is better than the mighty; and he that ruleth his spirit than he that taketh a city. (Proverbs 16:32)


One King for the Kingdom of God


There is only one King in the Kingdom of God and He washes feet. Where does that leave the rest? This is an important question. If leaders begin to behave like sinners then they are a serious risk to the churches of God and have to be dealt with. No matter how gifted or talented, a leader that cannot rule his/her spirit has no place in the Kingdom. They are disqualified. Why? Because the bad spirit, a symptom of pride, has corrupted their ability to hear God and move in His judgment of things. The meek will he guide in judgment: and the meek will he teach his way. (Psalm 25:9) Moses was the meekest man in all the earth. God led him every step of the way and gave him the first five books of the Bible. Moses may have been mistreated, but he let God deal with it.


The Lord is watching


There are certain leaders that behave rightly only when other more respected leaders are around. This is a clear teaching of Jesus. One of the more fearful passages in the scriptures reads:



But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken; The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of, And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Matthew 25:49-51)

I wonder if this man may have said something like, "Lord, you don't understand all the pressures associated with ministry. These people are a stiffnecked people." Perhaps he thought he could treat the Good Master's people as 'human resources' like tyrannical employers treat their employees. Whatever the excuse there is one clear thing about this passage, the Lord of that servant was gone and not expected to return anytime soon. This allowed the true heart of the servant to come out. They may have behaved really well when kept in check by the master of the house, but now he is gone and this 'attitude' manifests. Everyone around them sees it, including the Lord. Here we read, The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of, And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. We often associate this with the rapture, but I am inclined to believe that the lord will suddenly cut that servant down and cast them into hell. He showed God who he was and God believed him.

Leading on softly

And he said unto him, My lord knoweth that the children are tender, and the flocks and herds with young are with me: and if men should overdrive them one day, all the flock will die. Let my lord, I pray thee, pass over before his servant: and I will lead on softly, according as the cattle that goeth before me and the children be able to endure, until I come unto my lord unto Seir. (Genesis 33:13, 14)

This passage gives us an early example of what it means to lead a flock. Jacob recognizes that the sheep cannot be driven or they will die. The YLT translates the passage, when they have beaten them one day, then hath all the flock died. The language indicates that the method under consideration was to get the flock moving by beating them. Jacob refused to allow his flock to be abused into getting moving along at a pace that was not sustainable for their constitution. They will move for a while in this way, but will soon be dead. This can play out in a single day. The flock simply cannot handle a reckless leader that has no consideration for the flock. Notice the care with which the lead is taken; Let my lord, I pray thee, pass over before his servant: and I will lead on softly. There were circumstances involved where the leader (Jacob), if he did not keep his head, could have angrily or nervously overdriven the flock that it had taken many years to raise up. His solution? I will lead on softly.


Other motivations for right behavior?


In our previous articles we have examined the heart of a shepherd. We have tried to demonstrate the wisdom of God in employing the example of a shepherd and his sheep as metaphors of God's relationship with His people and the purpose of having an established oversight. In the second half of this entry I want to be a bit more practical. The question we want to ask is, are there any other motivating factors that God has employed to ensure the flock is cared for? I think there is at least one more.


Supported in the work


Paul employs the experience of the soldier, farmer, and shepherd to demonstrate that each is supported by their work. This is common sense. Yet my focus is on the shepherd. Here our key passage reads, who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? That is to say, he is supported by the produce. He labors to feed the flock with a view to receiving back for himself the fruits of his labors. This means that the shepherd has a vested interest in how well the sheep fare.


A high risk attitude


In the natural world sheep are assets to their owners. This is another reason why the shepherd guards his flock. They are his source of living. There is a mutual benefit. The shepherd provides for the needs of the sheep (what they cannot provide for themselves); and the sheep provide for the shepherds (what they cannot provide for themselves). Its almost a bad word these days, but this reciprocal relationship, based on mutual benefit, creates a sort of codependence. This is another reason why a hireling is dangerous- not only to the sheep, but to the shepherd and the whole ranch. His carelessness puts the whole operation in jeopardy.


Fleeing sheep


We have demonstrated before that the good shepherd will leave the 99 to go find the 1 lost sheep. Not just because he has a heart for the sheep, but also because he knows he cannot long sustain losses. Sheep are easy to lose, but hard to come by. If the enemy comes in and scatters a flock and then kills some of them, that is less resources for the ranch. In the kingdom of God, when the enemy takes out a believer, all of their contributions to the kingdom are lost. No more wool and no more milk. Relationships are lost. Numbers dwindle. They are gone and the remaining group suffers.


A reckless attitude


It would behoove a shepherd to make sure his flock was protected if for no other reason than simple business. A rich man could learn to love the sheep is he knew his livelihood was on the line. For each sheep that is driven off or killed the shepherd loses a percentage of the milk of the flock. If he keeps his reckless attitude up he may wake up one day and there not be enough sheep left to produce his necessary food.


Sheep don't produce much milk, but what they do produce is among the most potent of all milks consumed by humans. When a sheep is upset it may not eat. If they are nervous they can have physical issues just like people when they get nervous. They may waste away under a careless shepherd. All of these factors have a direct bearing on the shepherds livelihood.


Fighting indifference in the churches of God


No shepherd should ever pander to the big sheep in the flock (if there is such a possibility). It would be a travesty to starve the sheep to feed the goats. This is also common sense and we will not waste time balancing these comments. They need to stand on their own. A shepherd cannot afford to allow his sheep to be unnecessarily offended or neglected. A real life shepherd Phillip Keller once described the life and conditions of his neighbors' sheep:


"The tenant sheepman on the farm next to my first ranch was the most indifferent manager I had ever met. He was not concerned about the condition of his sheep. His land was neglected. He gave little or no time to his flock, letting them pretty well forage for themselves as best they could, both summer and winter. They fell prey to dogs, cougars and rustlers. They had only polluted, muddy water to drink. There had been a lack of salt and other trace minerals needed to offset their sickly pastures. In their thin, weak and diseased condition these poor sheep were a pathetic sight. In my mind's eye I can still see them standing at the fence, huddled sadly in little knots, staring wistfully through the wires at the rich pastures on the other side. To all their distress, the heartless, selfish owner seemed utterly callous and indifferent. He simply did not care. What if his sheep did WANT [sic] green grass; fresh water; shade; safety or shelter from the storms? What if they did WANT [sic] relief from wounds, bruises, disease and parasites? He ignored their needs -- he couldn't care less. Why should he -- they were just sheep -- fit only for the slaughterhouse" (emphasis is the authors)

Even the casual reader can see what this so-called shepherd was doing; he was milking the flock for every last dime he could get out of it and having no inclination to reinvest back into them. As far as he was concerned they were an income source. This attitude is an abomination in the churches of God, but even this man should have had the good sense to see that the trajectory he was on was not sustainable. In time each one of those sheep would have been stolen, killed, ran off, starved or diseased until he himself was bankrupt. His dereliction was hurting himself just as much as the sheep.

Hair-lipping the devil


My former pastor had one more saying that is worth noting here. He spoke of people that would be so set on having their way that they would do it if it 'hair-lipped the devil.' This is a southern expression that means a person is willing to hurt whoever they have to in order to get their own way. We have a similar word; spiteful, that may be an attitude employed as well. The problem with these attitudes is that they destroy a flock; and even in the base business sense, destroying a flock does not make sense. The flock supports the shepherd, that is as plain as anything. Why would a shepherd destroy his own flock? It can only ever mean one thing- the enemy is at work seeking to destroy the sheep.


_________________
SI Moderator - Greg Gordon

 2011/6/15 11:21Profile
Joyful_Heart
Member



Joined: 2009/12/8
Posts: 1795


 Re: The Expense of an Offense by Robert Wurtz II

This is very good. Praise God.

 2011/6/15 13:13Profile





©2002-2024 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy