1 Thessalonians 2:1-12
What Paul says in this passage hints there were
problems back in Thessalonica. It seems
as if there were those trying to undermine Paul’s work there. It’s not clear who they were; they might have
been opponents from the local Jewish establishment, they might have been part
of a legalistic Christian party that believed the open invitation to Gentiles
was a mistake, they might have been pagans who resented the growth of what they
considered to be a rival group. Whether
or not there were opponents, it’s clear Paul felt it was important to remind
the Thessalonians of the character of his ministry among them.
Paul would not have been the only traveling teacher
these people would have ever encountered.
Such peripatetic teachers were part of the Greek scene.
--Some of these teachers were sincere. They genuinely believed their teaching would
enlighten and improve the lives of those who heard and heeded them. Unfortunately, they often surveyed the human condition
and came to the wrong conclusion about our greatest problem. So, it follows, they would come to the wrong
conclusion about its solution.
--Many were unscrupulous charlatans. They were money-hungry tricksters who preyed
on vulnerable, gullible women. Some were
known for seducing the women who were drawn to their teachings. All were flatterers who would say whatever
they needed to say to insinuate themselves into the confidences of their
audiences.
What Paul says to the Thessalonians invites them to
compare his ministry with what they knew of the typical traveling teacher.
He reminded them of the long-term result of his
work. His work was “not in vain.” The traveling teachers might stir up emotions
for a while but once they were gone, things would quickly go back to what they
were before. The gospel Paul preached offered
a real solution for the real human problem.
Our problem is sin, the solution is the work of Christ.
At the same time, Paul made it clear his goal
wasn’t personal comfort or security.
After all the trouble he and Silas had had in Philippi, which included a
severe beating and being jailed, had they been pursuing comfort, they wouldn’t
have gone on preaching the gospel in a hostile culture.
Their commitment was to bringing God’s message to
the Thessalonians, not to their on comfort or security.
Paul brought that message as a message from
God. He might have presented a more
palatable message, one that would have been popular and less challenging. He didn’t.
He stood by the gospel.
As I was studying this passage I heard a former
Muslim, explain why so many Americans are turning to Islam. He said it was because Islam is a
human-centered religion. Hope of
salvation rests on human effort. It
appeals to our pride. The gospel challenges
our pride.
At the same
time, Paul opens the books, as it were, for all to review. Without a hint of pride, he reminds the
Thessalonians of the integrity that marked his ministry.
You can’t really read this passage without being
reminded of the televangelist scandals of a few years ago.
--Sexual misconduct.
--Financial improprieties.
Paul came to the Thessalonica to feed the sheep,
not to fleece them.
When Paul says their behavior was not marked by
“impurity,” he used a word that could refer to any kind of immoral
behavior. Some commentators resist any
suggestion that Paul was defending himself from charges of sexual
misconduct. But some enemies of
Christianity and Christian ministers won’t hesitate to make the most incredible
charges and, sadly, some Christian leaders have failed in this area.
At the same time, Paul would later warn the
Thessalonians against the sexual sin so prevalent in their culture. Would he have been able to have done that
with any credibility had he, himself, been guilty of such behavior?
But, even if Paul had not been guilty of sexual
misconduct, he might have been guilty of greed.
Again, he could point to his behavior while among the
Thessalonians.
Paul’s work as a bi-vocational evangelist ought to
encourage every present-day bi-vocational pastor/evangelist. But we shouldn’t forget that Paul’s decision
to work wasn’t based solely on financial need.
Of course, he might have been able to appeal to some of the “leading
women” who had joined the church, but he chose not to.
He chose to work because he wanted there to be no
questions about his motives. Even if his
status as an apostle might have permitted him to demand certain treatment, he
refused to exercise that right.
Back during the televangelist scandal, we learned
that the son of one of the televangelists had been placed in charge of his
father’s charitable ministry. The son
had used funds people sent to help the poor and hungry to furnish his
office. Among other thing, the
evangelist’s son put an $11,000 desk in his office. Now, I don’t believe a Christian ministry
needs to furnish its offices with things found at thrift shops or at yard
sales, but an $11,000 desk isn’t about efficiency; it’s about ego.
[This message was first prepared in 2006 so the
reference to the televangelist scandals is even older now. Sadly, along with new financial and sexual
scandals, other scandals involving the church have come to light since
then. Today, I might even add a third category
of behavior that brings the church into ill-repute. That would be PSYCHOLOGICAL OR SPIRITUAL
AUTHORITARIANISM. Several weeks ago I
read the confessions of staff members from a very large church in the American
northwest. The well-known pastor of this
church had resigned in disgrace and several of the individuals who had worked
under him were confessing their complicity in the situation at the church. In short, they were guilty of intimidating
and bullying people into compliance with the policies initiated by the pastor. They admitted they had failed to protect
people from his ego-maniacal abuse.
Their confessions, while appearing to be sincere, were too late to
prevent the reputation of their church and, perhaps, other churches from being
wounded by this climate of repression and intimidation. In truth, I know such behavior and such
attitudes are not limited to churches with thousands of members. I have known members of small churches with
fewer than 100 members who were victims of pastors who demanded absolute
devotion and would tolerate no questioning of their authority.]
Paul never let his ego get in the way of his
ministry. There was no
self-aggrandizement in what he did. They
could recall him heading off to work and know that he hadn’t come to “seek
glory from people.”
Surveys of the unchurched have often shown they
believe most churches are always asking for money. Some of what the church does requires
money. Most reasonable persons understand
that. But it’s a shame some churches and
some Christian leaders have made building wealth such a central part of their
message that many of the unchurched believe we are guilty by association.
Not only did Paul talk about the conduct he avoided
in Thessalonica, he reminded them of the conduct he displayed. He does so with two beautiful pictures drawn
from family life.
--He compared his behavior to that of a loving
mother.
--He compared his behavior to that of a caring
father.
Sometimes we picture effective evangelists as
fire-breathers, warning hearers of God’s anger at sin. That’s sometimes a legitimate theme but it’s
not the central theme of the gospel.
D. L. Moody’s ministry changed after discovering
the love of God and making it the heart of his preaching.
Paul’s ministry demonstrated the love of God in his
message, his ministry, and his outreach.
Paul nowhere suggests a mother can’t teach her
children or a father can’t be loving or gentle.
What he is doing is reminding the Thessalonians of the balance in his
ministry.
Like a mother, he sought to protect and provide for
those he considered his children.
Like a father, he sought to direct them toward a
more enriching walk with Christ.
He did this by getting to know the people he hoped
to reach.
Airhart:
The sight of the great
apostle carefully seeking out the individual person provides an important insight
into his ministry, and indeed an example for our own. It is a practical commentary on Paul’s
concern for individual worth in the sight of God, on persons as individual
members of Christ’s body, and on the Holy Spirit’s individual ministry to each
Christian man and woman. The concept of
the infinite value of every soul came supremely through the gospel of Jesus
Christ. The idea was revolutionary in
most of Paul’s world but was never more relevant than in ours. Within the Church there is no true evangelism
or pastoral care which does not follow this example.
He may have offered this counsel or shared the
gospel with an enquirer as he sat preparing materials for tent-making. Day or night, whenever the opportunity
arose, Paul shared the gospel with those willing to hear.
When things don’t turn out the way we plan, we may
begin to look for someone to blame. We
may even begin to suspect others, even if they’ve worked alongside us for a
long time. I believe lack of trust can
do powerful harm to any church.
Sometimes, as it seems to have happened in Thessalonica, malicious
individuals, promoting their own agendas, spread that distrust. Sometimes that distrust just emerges
spontaneously after a crisis or a disappointment.
No matter how it comes, distrust can spoil a
fellowship—or family life, a business, anything that demands we be able to work
together.
What happened to Paul at Thessalonica involved a
unique set of circumstances. Still, the
dynamics of his response might help rebuild trust where it’s begun to
erode.
Reading what Paul has said about trust suggests
some principles to guide us in determining whom we should trust.
1. Trust the Person Who’s Always Given Priority to
What God Considers Important.
Paul had
come to advance God’s Kingdom. He did
not come to advance Paul’s Kingdom.
2. Trust the Person Who’s Always Demonstrated Integrity.
The Thessalonians could look back and remember had
lived among them. He was unafraid to
say, “Remember back in the day….” He had conducted himself in a way that there
was nothing he hoped the people had forgotten.
3. Trust the
Person Who’s Always Had a Clear Commitment to Others.
We don’t know all the ways this characteristic may
have manifested itself in Paul’s work but it was clear the cared about the
Thessalonians. He didn’t remain
aloof. He showed them Christ’s love.
Conclusion:
Today, we seem to
have other ways to evaluate a ministry.
We pay particular attention to numbers.
That person with the “big” church is the effective minister. We can’t ignore that and should consider what
we can learn from those who seem to have success in church-building. We might want to examine how such pastors
promote and publicize their churches, how they make sure worship services
appeal to a variety of tastes, how the lighting is always just right. But our check list had better include items
about integrity, commitment, trustworthiness, and love.
