Sermon Tone Analysis

“I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church at Cenchreae, that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well.”

[1]

On one occasion during a pastorate in Coquitlam, I was subjected to a furious verbal assault during a Sunday morning service.

A man gifted in many ways, was incensed at my cautious nature; I had failed to promote him to a position of oversight as quickly as he thought he deserved.

Thus, he arose at the beginning of the message and delivered a tirade against me personally and against the church generally.

He concluded his diatribe with the declaration that he and his family were leaving the church.

He concluded with the assertion that they would never again darken the door.

This public outburst was the first I had heard of his discontent, so I was taken aback.

That same afternoon, as soon as practical, I visited him, seeking to repair the breech in our fellowship.

Together with another member of the congregation, I went to the man, only to be met with a series of angry, self-centred demands.

I could not accede to his insistence that the congregation capitulate to his infantile stipulations; thus, the rupture in fellowship was final.

Within a week, I was informed that he and his family were attending a sister congregation nearby.

After several weeks, I was told that he had become a youth sponsor for that congregation; and in time, I lost track of the family.

Almost a year later, I happened to meet the pastor of that congregation to which the family had attached themselves in their fury.

The pastor introduced himself, and we exchanged pleasantries.

Then, naming the man that had thunderously left our own congregation that Sunday morning in question, he complained, “A family you sent us caused us a lot of grief.”

That pastor continued by saying that the man had inflicted great harm on the congregation because of unchristian attitudes and constant anger.

I stopped my fellow elder at that point, explaining that we had not “sent” that family to him.

I pointed out the inconvenient truth that he had not demonstrated what should be a common courtesy among the churches of our Lord—the courtesy of contacting us when that man first began attending his services.

Had he inquired if there was a problem before the man offered to become a youth sponsor, or had he even phoned to see if we had concerns about the family, I would have cautioned him.

I terminated our conversation by stating, “If you fish in my pond, keep what you catch.”

The failure of contemporary churches to exchange letters of dismissal and/or commendation with sister congregations betrays gross ignorance of the practise of New Testament churches.

The failure either to communicate concerns about errant members or to solicit information on those seeking to participate in life of an assembly, betrays an appalling arrogance.

It is as though the churches that refuse to exchange communications are saying that they do not trust the judgement of fellow Christians and that they are prepared to care for matters without regard to the experience of other believers.

COMMENDING PHOEBE — “I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church in Cenchreae.”

The churches of the New Testament indeed had membership, and they did commend their members to sister congregations when they moved about the Empire.

It is a tragic observation that the practise of church membership must be defended in this day.

This sad necessity has come about either through deliberate ignorance on the part of shepherds who are more concerned with pleasing the flock than with pleasing the Master and who are more thoroughly imbued with laissez faire idealism than with knowledge of the Word, or through intentional negligence on the part of those same shepherds because they fear a negative response from those occupying the pews.

Church members appear more eager to assert their “rights” than to accept biblical responsibilities.

Perhaps this is inescapable in churches that reflect society instead of being agents of change within society.

Exaltation of the “self” dominates the current church scene.

Ecclesiastical democracy and the inevitability of congregational politics has supplanted obedience to the Word of God.

The unfortunate result is that membership in the local church is equated to membership in a fraternal organisation or membership in a civic club.

We attend; we join; we quit—all without accountability.

Undoubtedly, the Bible calls each individual to faith in Christ the Risen Lord.

You cannot say you are a Christian if you do not believe that Jesus died because of your sin and that He rose from the dead for your justification.

This is the call of God throughout the New Testament.

Each week, I quote from Paul’s Letter to the Romans at the conclusion of the message.

“If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved” [ROMANS 10:9, 10].

Salvation assumes that the one saved will openly confess the Faith through public confession as opportunity is afforded.

New Testament churches provide the opportunity to confess through baptism for those who are believers.

Those who believe are called to identify openly with the Lord Jesus through baptism.

At Pentecost, when the Spirit of God had descended in power on the disciples, Peter and the other disciples proclaimed Christ, calling all who heard to repentance and faith.

“Those who received [Peter’s] word were baptised” [ACTS 2:41].

In Samaria, as Philip preached the message of life, only those who believed were baptised [ACTS 8:12].

I am sadly amused that there are not a few preachers today who dare contend that membership is foreign to the New Testament.

Such men have not thought through the consequences of their position.

According to Jesus, membership is recorded in heaven!

He encouraged disciples to “rejoice that your names are written in heaven” [LUKE 10:20].

Since the Lord Jesus says that the names of those who are saved are written in heaven, wouldn’t you imagine that those identified as belonging to Him should be willing to have their names recorded together with those openly confessing Him on earth?

The early church certainly maintained rolls listing those who were members.

As believers moved from service in one congregation to accept responsibility in another, letters of commendation were provided.

The Apostle commends Timothy to the Corinthians [1 CORINTHIANS 16:10].

In a later letter to that same congregation he commends Titus [2 CORINTHIANS 8:23].

Mark is commended to the Colossian church [COLOSSIANS 4:10].

If membership does not matter—if who one is or where one belongs is unimportant, such letters would have served no purpose.

So, Paul commends Phoebe to the Church in Rome.

She was a servant in the church in Cenchreae.

Cenchreae, situated about eight miles from Corinth, served as the seaport for that great city.

Though we cannot say that Paul established the church in Cenchreae, he knew the church, having spent time in that city.

Paul is said to have set sail for Jerusalem from that seaport following his third missionary journey [ACTS 18:18].

The picture that emerges through even a casual review of these verses is that this dedicated servant of the church was travelling to Rome.

The reason for her journey is not stated, nor is it necessarily germane to the study before us in this hour.

In Rome, Phoebe would be unknown to the Christians.

She would have no ministry such as she had exercised in her home congregation until she was accepted by the Roman saints.

Frequently, we forget the danger of being a Christian in that ancient world.

The believers were harried and hounded simply because they professed faith in the Son of God!

The Jerusalem disciples had good reason to be wary of Saul after he professed faith in the Son of God.

You will recall that “when [Saul] had come to Jerusalem, he attempted to join the disciples.

And they were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was a disciple” [ACTS 9:26].

They had already experienced persecution and had even witnessed executions because of the Faith of Christ the Lord.

Recall the events following the execution of Stephen.

“Saul approved of [Stephen’s] execution.

“…[T]here arose on that day a great persecution against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles… Saul was ravaging the church, and entering house after house, he dragged off men and women and committed them to prison” [ACTS 8:1-3].

Becoming a Christian was a risky business.

It was vital that the churches communicate with one another.

Therefore, the letter from the Church in Cenchreae to the Church in Rome assumed exaggerated importance if Phoebe was to fulfil the ministry God had given her.

Similarly, in this day, in order to fulfil the ministry God has assigned, the commendation of one congregation to another assumes an important—if neglected—role in development of Christian service as members move from church to church.

WHY COMMEND PHOEBE?

“I commend to you our sister Phoebe … so that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints and provide her with whatever help she may need from you.” Phoebe likely carried the letter to the Roman church.

The commendation appended to the letter was specifically designed to ensure that she would be welcomed by the congregation.

Through such commendation, fears concerning her commitment would be allayed and opportunity to join in the ministries provided through the congregation would be assured.

The unspoken truth is that the Church in Cenchreae knew who Phoebe was; she was a member of that congregation.

Perhaps you imagine that the apostolic churches were small, and hence they would know everyone who worshipped with the saints.

However, even a casual reading of the first several chapters of Acts demonstrates that the Church in Jerusalem was massive.

Some estimates place the membership of that congregation at 20,000 or more.

Clearly, the congregation had membership rolls since they knew which widows could receive the daily distributions from the church [ACTS 6:1].

We know that Chrysostom pastored the church in Antioch shortly after Acts was written; and the membership of that congregation is reported to have exceeded 100,000!

[2]

Even was there no evidence of church membership in the New Testament, that would not mean that church rolls should not be maintained.

If, as even opponents to the practise of church membership concede, God grants freedom in this area, we should respect the decision of the local congregation, exercising a submissive spirit to those with whom we worship.

We should each determine to show a spirit of sweet reasonableness, instead of demanding that the church make concession to our preferences.

Pastors must know who the members are in order to give them priority in ministry.

Pastors are also referred to in Scripture as “overseers” or as “elders.”

Oversight of the flock is entrusted to the overseers, but overseers have no authority over those who are not part of the household God has entrusted to the overseers’ care.

Errant Christians identified with another communion may be cautioned, but little can be done concerning their error if they are not under the authority of the overseers.

Likewise, an elder is recognised within the congregation that knows him and recognises his qualifications; but an elder of a congregation has no particular stature, other than that of a godly man, outside the congregation to which he belongs.

Similarly, a pastor (a shepherd) can shepherd only the flock over which God has appointed him.

Without a stated membership, there is no possibility of discipline for the flock.

Discipline is neglected in the contemporary church world; and one major reason for this neglect is an absence of teaching concerning membership and mutual accountability.

When a member of another church is errant, other than a public caution to one’s own congregation warning against contamination resulting from the individual’s error, there can be no discipline administered.