Four hours ago, I posted the question below on #leothreads. Surprisingly, @ahmadmanga asked @askrafiki to respond to the question. I didn't expect that such types of questions could be thrown at an AI agent.

Ai's response is more positive. My inclination is more on the critical side.

The background of this question is the sermon delivered today at Evangelical Covenant Church Manila (ECCM). I agree that the central idea of 1 Timothy 5:1-17 is about pastoral care for the church as a family. I see that the fallen condition focus (FCF) is the absence of conscious awareness that the church is a spiritual family. This does not mean that faith communities today don't teach the doctrine of the church as a family. They still do, but when it comes to practice, it appears that there is a disconnect.

Contemporary Context

One specific example is when problems arise in the church, whether they are financial, relational, or moral. To avoid the problem, the typical response of the offender is to leave the church. Perhaps it’s because of shame or pride that the offender doesn’t want to undergo church discipline.

In a family related by blood, we don’t usually do this. We stick to one another despite the problems. Of course, there are extreme cases where staying together is no longer possible, and that is why couples resort to divorce or separation. However, generally, we don’t abandon our family when there is a problem. We help the struggling member to cope with whatever problems he or she is facing.

If that is how we deal with physical family, how come when it comes to spiritual family, abandonment becomes the norm? Those guilty of such an act are not only offenders. There are also cases where the leadership of the church fails to treat church members’ problems as family matters.

We say that spiritual bonds are stronger than physical bonds. But when it comes to dealing with problems, it seems that such a saying isn’t true.

The specific example I mentioned above is related to the disconnect between church doctrine and practice. How about the influence of contemporary culture? How does this affect marriage and the core values of traditional families?

One dominant influence in today’s culture is the feminization of society. We can indeed learn something from the feminist ideology, such as the emphasis on collaboration, empathy, and care. I also recognize that feminism is not homogeneous. However, if it is really true that for feminism, marriage is degrading and seen as an oppressive social structure, the advice of the apostle Paul to younger widows in 1 Timothy 5:14 sounds outdated: to remarry, have children, and manage their households. The Bible seems to support an oppressive social structure in the eyes of feminist thinkers. Source

Another unavoidable contemporary context is the digitalization of society. Reechoing the interpretation of Klaus Schwab, the chairman of the WEF, he said that digitalization plays a significant role in the Fourth Industrial Revolution, and as such, it will change many things, including our habits and the time we devote to work and leisure. And I think even family time has been affected by such a trend. We are reminded of a popular image where all the members of one family sit together in a sala, and they fail to communicate with each other because everyone is busy with their own gadgets. Wim a Dreyer, a historical and systematic theologian, raised a similar concern, asking if the advent of the digital era could signal the demise of the church or would open new ministry opportunities. He has been calling for a sensitive response, wondering why, in a highly digitally over-connected world, many people suffer isolation, depression, and other issues of the mind. Source

Historical Context of the First Century and Exegetical Insights

The identified instances above are about contemporary contexts. As for the context of the church and society during the first century, that requires further reading and research. All I can provide this time is the plain meaning of 1 Timothy 5:1-17.

Returning to our analytical question, how do spiritual leaders today show care to the church as a family in a highly feminized and increasingly digitalized generation?

A cautious reading of the passage will direct you to two natural divisions. The role of an exegete is to be faithful to his text, not to force an artificial outline not true to the text. Since it is the apostle Paul, the mentor, talking to his mentee or disciple, Timothy, this instruction is related to the pastoral ministry of the latter. In verses 1 and 2, Paul was telling Timothy to treat members of the church as a family, and that is why he used the terms "father," "brothers," "mothers," and "sisters." In verses 3 to 14, a more detailed instruction is given on how to deal with widows.

And so, to answer our central question, our text responds in two ways:

• Spiritual leaders show care for the church as a family by way of encouraging words, verses 1-2.

• Spiritual leaders show care for the church as a family by way of concrete action, verses 3-14.

Here we see that in biblical Christianity, there is no separation between words and concrete action. Encouraging words are most needed these days, considering the contemporary contexts we identified above. Many people, including members of the church, suffer in isolation. They hide their pain in their smiles. Outwardly, they seem fine, but inwardly, they are broken. What they need is encouragement from a genuine family.

The concrete action pertains particularly to the ministry for widows. I wonder why in churches today, even those who are proud to call themselves "reformed," the ministry for widows is almost nonexistent. This tells us that in modern Christianity, there is a huge disconnect between our words and our actions. No wonder the world is not taking us seriously, for we undermine the message that we preach for lack of action.

I think that's enough for now. Arriving at a detailed exegesis of the passage requires more time.

Grace and peace!

Posted Using INLEO