Why I am An Amillenialist, Part 2

In my previous post I began explaining why I believe in Amillennialism by stating my seventeen main reasons. Beginning with this post I want to look at those reasons in more detail. I will focus on the first.

To begin, I believe Amillennialism is the best explanation for the end-times since...

1. It appears that the New Testament understands the so-called “millennial” language of the Old Testament as being fulfilled in the age-to-come (the new heaven and new earth), not in a future literal millennium.

In other words, those passages that some understand as referring to a literal future 1,000 year rule of Christ on earth that is distinct from the future new heaven and new earth is instead understood by the New Testament authors as referring to the future eternal state, the new heaven and new earth of Revelation 21-22.

Let’s start with Isaiah 65:17-25.  Though a hard passage, most likely what we have here is a figurative depiction of the future new heaven and new earth. After all, that is exactly what v. 17 states, and what reason do we have to distinguish verses 18ff. from that assessment? In Revelation 21-22 the Apostle John seems to take this language as referring to the future new heaven and new earth.  

This means that most likely Isaiah 65:20 (“No more shall there be in it an infant who lives but a few days…the young man shall die a hundred years old….”) is speaking of long life that, in light of Is. 25:8, means there will be no death in this future age. In fact, in 1 Corinthians 15 Paul sees Isaiah 25:8 fulfilled at the second coming of Christ, i.e. when resurrection takes place—not 1,000 years later. We conclude, then, that Isaiah 65 is most likely using covenantal pictures (of long life as God’s reward)—God’s covenant of grace will be completely fulfilled and its blessings consummated. The key in this chapter is that Isaiah is using covenantal language and affirming the covenant will be ultimately fulfilled for God’s people.

Another passage many see as referring to a future literal millennium, Isaiah 11, appears to engage in prophetic foreshortening or telescoping prophecy wherein Isaiah is given a picture of the future which includes the Messianic age (New Testament Church age) moving right into the age-to-come.  Of course, it is possible to posit a millennial reign thrown in here as well, but it is not demanded. When one grasps the reality the age-to-come is a new heaven and a new earth, it is most probable this language refers to the age-to-come by using this-world, i.e. this-age language, esp. since Is. 65:17-25 uses the same kind of language to refer to such a period and since Rev. 21-22 clearly has some this-world, this-age language to help describe the age-to-come.

Ezekiel 40-48 speaks of the building of an end-times temple. Rather than this referring to a future millennial literal rebuilding of the temple, there are a number of reasons to believe that the New Testament sees these chapters fulfilled in Jesus Christ as the ultimate temple (John 2:19) and partially fulfilled in this age in those united to him (the New Testament Church—1 Cor. 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16), who fulfill the ultimate purpose of the temple (1 Peter 2:4-10)—that being the calling of the nations to the true God (1 Kings 8:41-43). Additonally, since these chapters speak of sacrifices, it becomes very problematic to see them as literal.  Based upon New Testament revelation that affirms Jesus Christ is the ultimate sacrifice to whom these old Testament sacrifices pointed (Mt. 5:17; Col. 2:16-17; Heb. 8-10), how can there be a return to sacrifice (at least in any way God puts his stamp of approval on)? After all, the real and ultimate sacrifice, Jesus Christ, has already come! 

And, if the sacrifices are not literal, why would we understand the temple as literal? Addition- ally, it appears that Revelation 22 takes this language and applies it to the New Heaven and New Earth as the ultimate and complete fulfillment (See Ezek. 47:12).

Some (especially Premillennialists) suggests that to say the Old Testament uses language of its day to refer to future events that would not be literally fulfilled discredits the Old Testament. However, Westminster Theological Seminary professor, Greg Beale, gives the following illustration as an answer. It is based on a father in 1900 promising his son a horse and buggy when he grows up and gets married.

During the early years of expectation, the son reflects on the particular size of the buggy, its contours and style, its beautiful leather seat and the size and breed of horse that would draw the buggy. Perhaps the father had knowledge from early experimentation elsewhere that the invention of the automobile was on the horizon, but coined the promise to his son in terms that his son would understand. Years later, when the son marries, the father gives the couple an automobile, which has since been invented and mass-produced. Is the son disappointed in receiving a car instead of a horse and buggy? Is this not a ‘literal’ fulfillment of the promise? In fact, the essence of the father’s word has remained the same: a convenient mode of transportation. What has changed is the precise form of transportation promised. The progress of technology has escalated the fulfillment of the pledge in a way that could not have been conceived of when the son was young. Nevertheless, in the light of the later development of technology [corresponding to the redemptive impact of the coming of Christ], the promise is viewed as ‘literally’ and faithfully carried out in a greater way than earlier apprehended.”[1]

Bottom-line, as we allow the New Testament to give a clearer picture of all those things to which the Old Testament looks forward, I believe we are to understand the so-called “millennial” passages as not having reference to a literal millennial reign that is distinct from the future new heaven and new earth.

But there are sixteen more reasons I think this. We will continue looking at these in the next post.

---

[1] G. K. Beale, The Temple And The Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology Of The Dwelling Place Of God (Downers Grove,: IVP, 2004), 352-53, cited in Storms, Kingdom Come, 211-12.

Why I Am An Amillennialist

In my last post I introduced the discussion of what I believe about the end-times, since those viewpoints led to my relinquishing my ordination with the Evangelical Free Church Of America. I explained the three main end-times positions: Premillennialism, Postmillennialism, and Amillennialism. We saw that in two of the positions (Pre-and Post-), the labels are given based in large part on the relationship of the Second Coming of Christ to the millennium. In the third position, the one to which I hold, the belief is that the language of the millennium in the Bible refers to the reign of Christ with saints in heaven during this present age we now live in—the age before he comes again. This position also believes that some of the passages that are thought to refer to a millennium actually refer to the new heaven and new earth. Amillennialism also believes that there is no literal 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth that is a distinct period from the future new heaven and new earth.

There are primarily seventeen reasons I take this position, although more reasons could be offered. Over the next few weeks I will look at each of these reasons, explain them, and seek to show how they represent what the Bible teaches. Before I look in detail at those reasons, I thought it would be helpful to state them upfront (without commentary) so you can get the overview of where we will be heading.

Here are the seventeen reasons I am an Amillennialist.

1. It appears that the New Testament understands the so-called “millennial” language of the Old Testament as being fulfilled in the age-to-come (the new heaven and new earth), not in a future literal millennium.

2. The Scripture’s use of two age terminology (this age and the age-to-come) fits better with an Amillennial position.

3. The only mention of a 1,000 year reign of Jesus Christ is found in Revelation 20.  That text is best understood in the context of Revelation as a reign of Christ in heaven with saints during the present Church age.

4. The best understanding of the language of a tribulation (a period of seven years, made up of two 3.5 year periods) is that it is a figurative reference to real suffering and tribulation for the Church that extends throughout this entire Church age.  As such, a precedent is already set for end-times events that span the entire period of the New Testament Church, as does the “millennium” of Revelation 20.

5. The Strong New Testament emphasis that the New Testament Church (Jew and Gentile) is now the people of God and a continuation of God’s people in the Old Testament, decides against any end-times position that would see two programs for two people of God (the Church and Israel), as do the most popular forms of Premillennialism.

6. The second coming of Jesus Christ is most likely after the tribulation.  Since there is no clear evidence for a secret rapture forming a two-stage coming, any Premillennarian position setting forth such a position is untenable.  This means that one must hold either to post-tribulational Premillennialism or Amillennialism—especially in light of the problems of Postmillennialism as discussed below.

7. New Testament theology prevents taking some of the Old Testament prophetic language as literal (examples: rebuilding of a temple and restoration of sacrifice).  This leads one to see such language as depicting future realities to Old Testament saints in language they would understand, but not taken as literally fulfilled.

8. Amillennialism preserves more than any other view the Christ-centered nature of the entire Scriptures.

9. Amillennialism does the best job of dealing with the emphasis in the New Testament that the Kingdom of God has already been started, but it is not yet fully here.

10. Amillennialism does the best job of dealing with resurrection and judgment language in the Bible which appears not to put these events into different stages.

11. The New Testament is to be allowed to give greater clarity to Old Testament end-times expectation, rather than those Old Testament expectations silencing the progression of the New Testament.

12. We must interpret texts according to the intent of the authors, even if that intent is figurative. It appears that many Old Testament texts that Premillennialists have interpreted as prophesying a literal millennium are instead intended to prophesy the future new heaven and new earth, using language of the current day as symbolizing what would happen in the future.

13. There are some key passages that support Amillennialism.

14. It is difficult to see any legitimate purpose for a future literal millennial reign, especially in light of the way Revelation 21-22 appears to be the counter-point to Genesis 1-3 and the climax of Scripture, and in light of the reality there are not two separate programs for Israel and the New Testament Church.

15. A future literal millennial reign of Christ with glorified and non-glorified saints on a non-glorified earth (a reality for which Premillennialists argue) is problematic.

16. Amillennialism does justice to the language in the New Testament which suggests the end-times events surrounding the Second Coming of Christ are impending and therefore one must always be ready and expectant.

17. Though Postmillennialism would share some tenets with Amillennialism, it also has problems that decide against it.

Why I Am No Longer Ordained

Many in our local church know that a couple of years ago I relinquished my ordination credential with the Evangelical Free Church of America. I did not do this lightly. I say this not only because I love this association, its ethos, and its doctrinal statement, but also because the credential, which I held for over twenty years, was not easy to get in the first place.

Some of you may have forgotten or never heard why I did this. It had to do with the very healthy requirement the EFCA has for ordained pastors to reaffirm every point of our ten point doctrinal statement on a five year basis—and to do it without mental reservation. When it came time for me to do this at the end of 2013 and beginning of 2014, I could affirm with great gladness 99% of the statement. The one part of it I could not affirm without mental reservation is one word found in point #9: “We believe in the…premillennial return of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Because I believe Bible doctrine and biblical ethics are very important, I take very seriously the signing of such statements and could not be dishonest with our association leadership. For almost thirty years I have been able to affirm the premillennial return of our Lord Jesus Christ. However, since moving to Minden, further study I had done on the subject led me to a different position.

Because of this, over the next few weeks I will blog about what I believe about the end times, why I believe it, and so why I changed my position.

Here are several points by way of clarification up front before I begin discussing what I believe.

(1) For the EFCA to require pastors like me to relinquish our credential when we cannot affirm even one word in a doctrinal statement is the right thing to do! Though I may disagree now with the majority of EFCA people about how things will be worked out in the end times, I whole-heartedly agree with and love the association’s commitment to the Bible, truth, and taking seriously its doctrinal statement. That I needed to relinquish my credential adds to my respect for association leadership!

(2) Since the EFCA does not require a pastor in the association to be credentialed in the EFCA, the lack of a credential in no way jeopardizes my ministry in the EFCA.

(3) In blogging on this subject I in no way am vying for the EFCA to change point #9 in its statement. Of course, if the word “premillennial” were removed, I would be fine with it. However, I will not campaign for that. Such is not the purpose of these blog posts. I merely want to share with my faith family, friends, and others interested why I have switched my position. I also want to encourage all followers of Jesus to think carefully through what the Bible teaches on this subject.

(4) Though I will offer a detailed analysis of why I have changed my position and will seek to do so heartily, I also do so with a great deal of humility and sensitivity. What one believes specifically about the nature of the millennium and related matters is not one of the priority doctrines of the church. Though it is an important topic to discuss, I don’t want to suggest in my posts that those who disagree with me are lesser Christians, lacking in biblical fidelity, or somehow are ignorant. I do not believe any of these things at all.

With those disclaimers made, in the rest of this post I want to introduce you to the position to which I hold that has replaced premillennialism. The position to which I hold now is known as amillennialism.

Defining Terms

Some of you are now thinking, “pre-what?”  “a-what?”  “Tom, what in the world are you talking about?” So, let me explain.

In Revelation 20:1-6 the Apostle John speaks of a thousand year period (vv. 2, 4, 6) in which Satan is bound so that he might not deceive the nations (v. 2) and in which Jesus Christ reigns and saints with him (vv. 4, 6). The three major views of Christians throughout the history of the Church in regard to the return of Jesus Christ have been defined by how they relate to this period (the millennium) and they have been labeled accordingly. Let’s briefly look at them.

Premillennialism

Most who hold to this position believe that this period is a future literal 1,000 year reign of Christ and the saints on earth before the earth and saints have been perfected (fully glorified) and a period that is different than the new heaven and new earth of Revelation 21-22. All who hold to this position believe Jesus Christ will return before this future 1,000 year period, which is why it is called premillennialism.

There are three different varieties of premillennialists. There are post-tribulational premillennialists—those who believe Jesus Christ will return after the tribulation and before the millennium. In this position there are some who believe the tribulation is a literal seven year period and some who think it is not. Also, there are mid-tribulational premillennialists—those who believe Jesus Christ will return in the middle of the tribulation (most of these believe in a literal seven year tribulation and a literal 1,000 reign of Christ and saints on earth). Finally, there are pre-tribulational premillennialists—those who believe Jesus will not only return before the 1,000 period, but also before the tribulation (most believing both the tribulation and millennial reign are literal in their numbers).

Before we leave premillenialism, there are three more things to say about it. To begin, many of the pre-tribulational and mid-tribulational adherents believe that one of the key purposes of the millennium is for God to fulfill his purposes and promises among the nation of Israel. Those who believe this believe there is a strong distinction between Old Testament Israel and the New Testament Church.

Another thing that needs to be said about premillennialism is that for the history of the Evangelical Free Church of America (it was founded in 1950), it has been an association that strongly affirms premillennialism. Since the late 70’s it has allowed credentialed pastors to hold to any of the three tribulational positions (pre-, mid-, or post-) as long as they affirmed without mental reservation premillennialism.

The final point to make before leaving this position is that there is a strong difference between post-tribulational premillennialism and its two cousins (pre- and mid-tribulational premillennialism)—especially in how the overall organization of the Bible is understood and how the relationship of Israel and the Church is seen. Post-tribulational premillennialism has much in common with Amillennialism. So, for me to switch from the former to the latter was not a big step to take biblically, even though it put me outside of the EFCA doctrinal statement. More about that later.

Postmillennialism

Those who hold to this position believe, as the name suggests, that Jesus Christ will return after the millennium, which is seen as a golden age on the earth, ushered in by the triumphant mission of the church and the spreading of the gospel to the ends of the earth. Some postmillennialists believe that the period is a literal 1,000 year reign, but most do not take it as literal.

Amillennialism

In the remainder of my blog posts I will spend the vast majority of my time on this position, the one to which I now hold. The a- prefix on the word literally means “no” and so the wooden rendering of the label is “no millennium.” However, it is not accurate to say that amillennialists do not believe in what the Revelation 20:1-6 passage says about this reign of Christ and saints, nor is it accurate to say they do not believe in what other passages say that premillennialists interpret as describing the millennium (e.g. Isaiah 65:17-25). What is accurate to say is that amillennialists believe the Revelation 20:1-6 passage has nothing to do with a reign on earth, but instead is describing a reign of Christ and saints in heaven that runs concurrently with the present Church Age. What is accurate to say is that most other passages premillennialists interpret as referring to the millennium, amillennialists see as referring to the future new heaven and new earth (Revelation 21-22). In other words, it is not first and foremost that amillennialists disbelieve certain biblical teachings. They interpret them differently and see the events taking place at other times.

How Many Hold To Each Position

For those of you who are not currently confused or lost, those still in there with me, you may be asking, “So how much of the Church believes each position?” That is a great question. The reality is that in a recent poll of evangelical leaders, 65% said they believe in some form of premillennialism, 4% in postmillennialism, and 13% in amillennialism.[1] It is possible the majority of evangelicals that believe in premillennialism and who are not leaders or pastors could be even higher. There is no question that premillennialism is believed by the vast majority of the evangelical church.

Why is premillennialism so popular?  That is hard to answer. Part of the reason, though, has to do with the fact that premillennialists have done a better job over the past 150 years of getting their position out in popular books and movies and study materials.

So, I do want to say from the start that I have taken a position that is different than the majority of evangelicals. What I will do over the next several weeks is seek to explain to you why. However, as I do this, I will continue to affirm that I gladly lock arms with those who disagree with me, and I want to approach this discussion remembering that this is a family discussion. Those with whom I disagree are my brothers and sisters in Christ.

May God help me remember this and present my case with that attitude!

Joyfully awaiting the blessed hope of the appearing of Jesus Christ with you,

Tom

---

[1] Audrey Barrick, “Poll: What Evangelical Leaders Believe About The End Times,” Wed., March 09, 2011, at www.Christianpost.com, cited in Sam Storms, Kingdom Come: The Amillennial Alternative (Scotland, UK: Mentor Imprint Of Christian Focus Publications, 2013), 43.

No Ministry Oinkers

Have you ever heard a parent say, when asked whether or not they have taught their children to do a job, “Well, it’s just easier to do it myself”? I have, and at times I have even been that parent. However, if we are to be successful in passing on to our sons and daughter a good work ethic and in teaching them how to carry out particular tasks, we must remember that there is something more important than the perfect or the easier outcome: Training the next generation.

Such is the mentality we must have also in the church, if we are to pass on the faith and its practice to the next generation. Brad Brinson, lead pastor at Two Rivers Church in Knoxville, Tennessee, puts it this way:

Don’t be a ministry hog. People with ministry experience may be inclined to keep doing that task wowing those around them with their ability.  But they are unwittingly preventing up-and-comers from fulfilling their ministry calling. Release ministry to others so others can grow.  Don’t be a ministry oinker.[1]

If we are to be a healthy church who is equipping future ministers and leaders, we must resist the temptation to be “ministry oinkers”! At the heart of the three biblical leadership principles we have left to cover is the call to turn around and equip others out of our gifts, talents, and experience. Let’s take a brief look at those three principles.

To Begin, we must:

HAVE A CALL FOR OFFICIAL LEADERSHIP POSITIONS.

All Jesus followers have a call to multiply; to equip younger believers. Consider where we discover this in the Pastoral Epistles:

·         2 Timothy 2:2: “and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

·         Titus 2:2-6: “Older men are to be sober-minded, dignified, self-controlled, sound in faith, in love, and in steadfastness. ³ Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, ⁴ and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, ⁵ to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled. ⁶ Likewise, urge the younger men to be self-controlled.

This call is also at the heart of the Church’s mission, as seen elsewhere. Matthew 28:19-20: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, ²⁰ teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”  So, every Christian is to be a teacher, i.e. one who equips others to be disciples of Jesus. Consider how Jesus begins this kingdom parable in Matthew 13:52: “Everyone who has been made a disciple of the kingdom of heaven, a teacher….” (author’s own translation)

Yet, there are some followers of Jesus who have been given a more specific call. Such a one “aspires to the office of overseer” (1 Tim. 3:1), having been gifted (1 Timothy 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6, appointed to that end (2 Tim. 1:11), and confirmed by others (1 Tim. 3:10). Elsewhere in Scripture we not only discover that overseers in the church should be placed there by the Holy Spirit (Acts 20:28)—a truth that is as the heart of a divine call to leadership, we also find out that other leaders in Scripture operate under a specific divine calling to their office: Moses as the one to lead Israel out of Egypt and through the wilderness (3:1-22); Joshua as the one to lead Israel into the Promised Land (Dt. 31:14; Joshua 1:1-18); David as the king to prefigure the coming King and Messiah (1 Sam. 16:1-13; 2 Sam. 7:12-16; Jer. 33:14-22; Ezek. 33:23-24; 37:24); Paul as an apostle (Rom. 1:1; Titus 1:3), and many others. The advantage of remembering such a call is not only to keep in sight just what it is that God desires the leader to do and to be stubbornly committed to it (see Acts 20:24), but also to take courage from a call when things are hard (Joshua 1:1-9).

At the core of the call to New Testament eldership (i.e. pastoring or shepherding) is taking what one has learned and entrusting it to faithful believers who will be able to teach others (2 Tim. 2:2)—and all this in a manner in which all the saints can be equipped for that kind of multiplying ministry (Eph. 4:10-16; Col. 1:28). This is why elders must be able to teach (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:9-10) in a manner that has training others to follow Jesus at its very core (see 1 Tim. 4:12, 16).

One of the worst things a church can do is to put into leadership those who have not been called, gifted, equipped, and confirmed as those who should be there. After all, since the health of the Church is so dependent upon such leadership (see Eph. 4:7-16; 1 Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-10), it is important that the right leaders are in place.

Certainly such multiplying, equipping, disciplemaking ministry is not the only call that the New Testament leader has, but it is most definitely at the heart of the calling. This is highlighted in our next-to-last leadership principle. Leaders are to:

INVEST IN OTHERS THROUGH THE GOSPEL WORK OF TEACHING AND DISCIPLING THAT DELEGATES RESPONSIBILITY AND GROWS THEM.

We have already introduced this, but it is important enough that we dare not short-change it. If the mission of the Christian Church is to multiply by making followers of Jesus Christ (Mt. 28:19-20), it stands to reason that Christian leaders are to give their best and most frequent efforts to this end.

In the Pastoral Epistles we see that leaders are to be able to teach and refute false doctrine (1 Tim. 3:2; 4:1-5; 2 Tim. 2:23-26; Titus 1:9-10), are to be devoted to teaching (1 Tim. 4:13), are to be able to correct those who are in error (2 Tim. 2:23-26), are to be diligent in the Scriptures (2 Tim. 2:15), and to know that the good servant of Christ is one who is a faithful teacher and equipped through the Scriptures for every good work (1 Tim. 4:6; 2 Tim. 3:16-17). Knowledge of truth and preaching are at the heart of the leader’s tasks (Titus 1:1-3) and this in a manner in which he is multiplying himself in others (2 Tim. 2:2; Titus 2:1-10) and teaching others how to live out the entailments of the gospel (Titus 2:1-15; 3:1-8).

Another example of a leader who was a teacher and skilled in the Word of God, in such a way he helped others come to understand and apply it was Ezra (Ezra 7:6; Neh. 8:1-8). He showed himself a faithful servant of God, for one of the primary tasks of both prophets and priests in the Old Testament was to teach God’s Word (see Exodus 3:16; 1 Ki. 22:14; Jer. 23:1-40; Ezek. 34:2; Mal. 2:7f.).

There is nothing that is more a part of the very fabric of leadership than leading others in the way they should go. For the Christian leader, then, this means leading in accordance with God’s Truth.

This teaching, however, must be with a bent toward not only investing in others—giving to them an opportunity to learn and gain experience—but also with a strong mind to delegate responsibility to others. The disciplemaking Christian leader must never conclude ministry is only about getting the tasks done. It is also about raising up other disciplemakers and leaders. As such, no leader should ever be a ministry oinker!

A great example from elsewhere in the Bible that addresses the need to invest in others and to spread out the responsibilities is that of Exodus 18:13-27, where Moses learned from his father-in-law, Jethro, that such delegation is not only best for the leader, but for all those being led (Exodus 18:17-18, 22-23).

Yet, there is one more thing we need to say about this ministry of multiplication. This leads us to our tenth and final leadership principle:

PASTOR YOUR FAMILY, NOT JUST OTHERS.

Among God’s people, passing on to the next generation the faith has always included a strong priority for teaching and equipping one’s own family (Dt. 4:1-8; 6:4-9). This is one of the reasons in the Pastoral Epistles that the elder/pastor is instructed that a qualification he must possess is capable leadership of his own family (1 Tim. 3:4-5; Titus 1:6). After all, he is to be an example to others (1 Tim. 4:12) and so he must disciple his wife and his children (see Eph. 5:25-30; 6:4) well. In fact, Paul writes that if this cannot be done, how will he be able to lead in the church (1 Tim.3:5)?

Few things undercut the Christian leader more than failing in his family life at the same time he is attempting to be successful “on the job.” And this particular failure happens all too often.

We have now set forth the ten principles of leadership we have gleaned from the Pastoral Epistles and which have also been supported from the rest of the Bible. Let’s commit ourselves to memorizing these principles and praying that they will be part of the fabric of our congregation. Let’s also model them and then multiply them into the lives of others who, in turn, will see them multiplied in others.

Here they are in review:

LAY BEFORE SELF AND OTHERS OUR ULTIMATE PURPOSE—GOD’S GLORY BY ENJOYING HIM.

EMBODY LOVE AS A KEY PURPOSE IN THE CHURCH.

ATTEND TO TRUTH AS A VERY IMPORTANT MEANS TO ACCOMPLISHING OUR PURPOSES IN THE CHURCH.

DEPEND UPON GOD WITH A HUMBLE, PRAYING, HOLY-SPIRIT-TRUSTING, GOSPEL-DIRECTED LIFE.

ESCORT OTHERS IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION COURAGEOUSLY, EVEN WHEN IT IS HARD.

RUN HARD AFTER GODLINESS.

SHOW OTHERS HOW TO LIVE THROUGH YOUR EXAMPLE—WHICH ALSO WILL DRAW OTHERS TO CHRIST.

HAVE A CALL FOR OFFICIAL LEADERSHIP POSITIONS.

INVEST IN OTHERS THROUGH THE GOSPEL WORK OF TEACHING AND DISCIPLING THAT DELEGATES RESPONSIBILITY AND GROWS THEM.

PASTOR YOUR FAMILY, NOT JUST OTHERS.

---

[1] Taken from Leadership Axioms, an unpublished resource at Two Rivers Church.