The Differing Gifts

W. Carl Ketcherside

[Page 161]

     I often think as I read the letters of Paul, what a difference it would make if one could go behind the scene in his mind and know the emotions and feelings which prompted certain words and sentences. It is all well and good to say that we have his statements before us and we can all know what he was saying if we want to do so. But it is true that nothing we write or say is in a vacuum. It is for that reason I do not care to be dogmatic about my conclusions. They represent my best approach at the time and they appear to be definitive, but I am never sure with my finite mind that there is not some point I have overlooked which may add a new dimension to my understanding.

     Legalistic positivists speak disparagingly of one who so writes. Their tendency is to ridicule one who does not think that his explanations are infallible. They ask how any person can follow one who is not sure what he believes. In reality they are the ones who deserve pity. First of all, they have missed the very essence of the Way, and confuse belief in things with faith in Christ Jesus. It is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ which makes for peace with God, and one can be strong in the faith which is in Christ Jesus and freely admit, "I have not yet reached perfection, but I press on, hoping to take hold of that for which Christ once took hold of me." Indeed, there is some indication that the stronger one's faith is in Jesus, the less he trusts in himself.

     Too, such critics are always inconsistent. Even while insisting that men can understand the sacred writings if they want to, they must admit that their own understanding may be faulty in some things. Is this because they do not wish to know? It is a little ludicrous to read after a couple of brethren with imperfect understanding assailing one another because each thinks the other is imperfect. Of course they are both right in their assessment. The very nature of their argument is a clear demonstration of ignorance combined with arrogance.

     This little introduction will serve to tell you that, in submitting my comments on the subject at hand, I have no desire or intention to bind them upon our readers. They simply represent my current views, and I will share them, not impose them. You have the same right to read God's word as do I. You also have the same right to reach conclusions as to its meaning. Nothing else is quite so important as to restore among us that pillar of the Reformation, "the right of private interpretation of the sacred scriptures."

     One who contends for this principle pleads for the God-given freedom of all the saints. One who denies it, and seeks to invest the right of interpretation in preachers, prelates, priests, or presbyters, takes the first step toward popery and the

[Page 162]

enslavement of men's minds. He negates the priesthood of all believers and establishes the cunning priestcraft of the few. There is no official interpretation of the scriptures, and there are no official interpreters. There is only a difference in degree between postulating that a group of elders can do the thinking for a congregation, and that a pope can do it for the church universal.

     I am resolved that no man or group of men shall drink for me at the fountain of life, or digest for me the bread of life. If I must answer for my thinking in the world to come I propose to do it in the world at hand. If I make mistakes, and I will, they will be my own, and I will accept the responsibility for them. But there are two sins for which I have resolved I will not have to account. One is that of abdication of my right to think for myself, and the other the imposition of my thinking upon others to the derogation of their own rights.

     "For by the grace given to me I bid everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith which God has assigned him" (Romans 12:3).

     Paul had the "grace of apostleship," that is, he had been made an ambassador as an act of divine favor. In this capacity he could help regulate the lives of those who were citizens of the divine economy. In this instance he is concerned about the evaluation which brethren place upon themselves. This is important because he is introducing the subject of the body, and the functions of the members with the gifts which God has bestowed.

     There seems to be always present a tendency for those who are specially gifted to exalt their importance. Paul wrote to the saints at Corinth: "Who made you, my friend, so important? What do you possess that was not given you? If then you really received it all as a gift, why take the credit to yourself?"

     Sober judgment is that which weighs all the facts and gives proper credit to each of them. It does not engage in pride or foolishness, neither does it bemean one's ability or talent. It considers life in such a manner that one can act with wisdom and prudence. A humble and modest estimate of self is requisite to a proper relationship with God and one another.

     The criterion for sober judgment as it affects our service in the body is the measure of faith. God has granted this. About this statement there has been much controversy. I do not propose to become involved in it, but I will simply express my honest opinion. It should be regarded as that, and nothing more. In view of the subsequent context I consider faith in this instance as synonymous with the functions, gifts and abilities, which enable us to serve God with reverence and acceptability. Our life is a life of faith, our work is a work of faith, yet no two of us have the same responsibility, or the same aptitude to serve. God has proportioned or measured these out to us according to his will. "In fact, God appointed each limb or organ to its own place in the body, as he chose" (1 Cor. 12:18).

     We are under divine assignment, or subject to divine appointment, and to a greater extent than most of us realize, we are what we are by grace. We may think that we arrived at our present ability by dint of discipline and work. These are important, but they are like a grindstone. They can put an edge on an axe or tool but cannot create one. Practice can sharpen our aptitudes, but they are a part of us.

     It is important to bear in mind that the word "member" is never used except in conjunction with the word "body." One never reads of a "member of the church," or of anything else, except the body. The reason is quite simple. The Greeks had no word for belonging to an organization. The word "member" was

[Page 163]

used only to designate an integral part of an organism, and never employed to describe one who had joined some kind of institution, fraternity or combine.

     In an organization the adherents are admitted by enlistment, enrollment, or under compulsion, as in the case of the military draft. In an organism the members are a component part of a vital or living entity. Thus, one does not join the body of Christ, but he is embodied by an act of God. "God sets the members in the body, as it pleases him." "By one Spirit you were all baptized into one body." I am incorporate with Christ. This word is from corpus, body, and means that I am in the body with Christ. I am in the body by a divine act.

     This is a favorite metaphor of the apostle Paul. The body of Christ in his personal mission on earth was the result of incarnation. The body of Christ through which he perpetuates his work upon earth results from incorporation. In his physical body Jesus had all of the organs essential to bodily functions in the flesh. In his spiritual body he invests us with all of the abilities necessary to continue his work. We take the place, as individuals, that was taken by his ears, eyes, mouth, arms and feet, and he now becomes the head of all, having been exalted to the right hand of God for this very purpose.

     Paul is preparing to deal with our varied gifts and he is pointing out that in order for the body to fulfill its role, various functions must be carried out. This requires not only a variation of administrations, but a variety of gifts. The body is able to function, not because all of the members are alike, but precisely because they are not. Our physical bodies are examples of unity in diversity. So also is the body of Christ.

     We are not only related to the body as a unit, but to each other as individual members. But the relationship to each other stems from the relationship to Jesus. In the physical body, some members are joined to the head only by being joined to other members, but in the body of Christ we are joined to other members only by being joined to the head. There is no other person between ourselves and Jesus. The wonderful unity we enjoy is the unity of the Spirit who indwells each member and the body as a whole.

     Actually, I cannot hurt my brother without hurting myself. If I speak evil of him it reflects against the organism of which we are integral parts. If I trample upon him I step on my own toes. In spite of our various functions we are all bound together in one body, and all of us have a responsibility in that body as well as to it and through it. The term "of one another" is a term of mutual sharing and what we share is the life of the body.

     Here we have some of the functions of the body of Christ, and the adaptation of the various members to carry them out. Not all are qualified to fulfill the same task, and should not be expected to do so. Paul affirms that our special abilities to carry out various fields of endeavor in the body of Christ are gifts received by grace. They are not something that we acquired or achieved, but they have been given to us. We may improve upon them and encourage their development by use, but we do not originate them.

     It is important for us to think through what Paul is saying because the word he uses for gifts is charismata, and this word is greatly abused and misused in our time. This is called "the charismatic age or period" because a lot of very sincere people believe that the Holy Spirit is moving into their lives in a new dimension, and granting them supernatural gifts. Now I am not concerned in this article with whether this is true, or

[Page 164]

whether they are honestly mistaken. I am in no position, and have no disposition, to question the personal experiences which others affirm.

     My concern here is their misunderstanding of scriptural language, and the false impression which is thereby created. The word charisma embodies the word charis, grace. A charisma is a gift of grace. It is not something for which one can claim credit, or of which he can boast and be proud. It does not result from his superiority or personal power. It is something to receive by the favor of another.

     So one can never understand charisma until he understands charis, that is, he can never understand what is meant by a gift of grace until he understands grace. And the word for grace was not invented by the Holy Spirit for scriptural usage. It had long been used by the Greeks and had a lengthy history before Jesus of Nazareth died on the cross. The Spirit appropriated it and invested it with new meaning, and glorified it, but did not introduce it.

     Certainly there had to be something about the term which could communicate to mankind the message which God wanted us to have. And the history of its usage shows its utilitarian value to the Spirit. At first, the word related to beauty and charm, but not simply to external beauty. Charm suggested an inner quality of graciousness which gave value to the whole personality. It was not put on, but it glowed from within and added sparkle to life.

     Eventually the philosophers came to believe that this inner quality was not developed by the person, but was a divine gift, a bestowal of the gods. They thought of it as an infusion of the divine into the pneuma, or spirit, manifesting itself in creativity, and enabling one to call forth or summon an inner vision which could be manifested in a concrete way, but never for a selfish purpose. It must be always for the public good, always for the benefit of mankind.

     A dramatist who could put together a play for the theater, which would make men laugh or weep, was thought of as having a charisma. A sculptor who could see a glorious figure in marble, and deliver it from the bondage which encased it, through clever use of the hammer and chisel, was said to have a charisma. The poet who could touch the springs of the emotions was said to have a charisma. These were called "gifted people." And there was one field in which certain men were thought to be especially gifted, that of oratory. The gods enabled them to communicate.

     It will be seen that these gifts refer to abilities which we do not generally think of as "supernatural." The playright at his desk, the sculptor in his studio, the actor on the stage, the orator on the platform--these are merely carrying out regular functions in daily life. True, they may have a special charisma in their work but there are others less gifted who are actors, sculptors, writers, or speakers. The word charismata, then, may embrace both what we call "natural" and "supernatural" gifts. I say "we" because God makes no such distinction. Nothing is supernatural with God.

     We are now in a position to understand why the Spirit appropriated from the Greek language a word which was in common use and dignified it with such transcendence. Charisma was a gift. It could not be earned or purchased. It was bestowed by Deity, and it was never given simply for selfish indulgence. It was to enable the one who received it to function in a fellowship, to make possible a combined effort in which all would work for the common good. That which previ-

[Page 165]

ously had provided solidarity in the Greek commonwealth was now regarded as making possible the functioning of the community of saints.

     In the passage under consideration the apostle designates prophesying, service of all kinds, teaching, exhorting, giving, presiding, and extension of mercy or pity, as done by charismatics. To designate any period in the history of the body of Christ as "a charismatic age," is thus seen to be ridiculous. There is no charismatic period because there is no non-charismatic period. Every era of our existence is one in which gifted men carry forward the cause of our Lord. And all of us can function in some manner.

     There is no such thing as a "charismatic movement." This is a term invented by men to describe a time in which they think one or more gifts are exhibited more profusely. However, no one can speak of a "charismatic movement" in the language of the Spirit. The Spirit makes no arbitrary distinction between the gifts we call natural and others, insofar as their utility and essentiality is concerned. The fact that certain endowments are called spiritual does not mean that the others are unspiritual. If they are charismatic they are gifts, and they are gifts of grace.

     Paul even calls the gift of continence which enables one to control his sexual impulse and to live in an unmarried state a charisma (1 Cor. 7:7). He refers to his providential deliverance from persecution and death, as a result of the prayers of the saints, as a charisma (2 Cor. 1:11). The interesting thing about this is the fact that it is written to the Corinthian community, the only one to which the apostle says much about pneumatics or charismatics.

     Correctly understood, this means that the exaltation of any charisma as a criterion of usefulness, faithfulness, or of standing with God, is wholly unwarranted. It was never intended that all members have the same function and it would be a little absurd to expect them all to receive the same gift. God places the members in the body as it pleases him, and it would be ridiculous for the ear to pray for a gift to enable it to function like the eye.

     Nor does a member of the body require special and continual assurance that he is still in the body and remains attached to the head. His very ability to function and his desire to serve the interests of the believers unselfishly and freely is indicative of the spiritual life. The one who shares an inner sense of peace and well-being in a life of steadfast daily service may have a more wholesome outlook than one who needs a regular shot in the pneuma. Only a hypochondriac has to call the physician every day to be sure that he is really alive.

     1. Prophesying. The prophet is the spokesman for God. He speaks for God to men. In the old covenant scriptures, the prophet was actually called a seer. He was one who could see through the curtain which obscured the future to others. And because he could see, he could also reveal the will of God for coming days.

     Later the term prophet came to be drawn chiefly from another word which meant to bubble up as a fountain. The Spirit moved in the prophet with an effervescent nature, and created a pressure to speak, or erupt. The word of God was described as "a fire in the bones," that is, a volcanic force in the spiritual depth, clamoring to be released. So the prophet could say, "I am weary from holding in."

     In the new covenant scriptures the Greek term means "to speak forth." It is a mistake to think of a prophet merely as one who forecasts or predicts. The book of Revelation is called prophecy, although it is specifically said to contain an account of things past, present, and future.

[Page 166]

Thus history, current events, and prognostication are all prophecy in God's sight, because they are all by inspiration. A prophet is a forth-teller. He is not always a foreteller.

     The one who had the gift of prophecy was to exercise it, "according to the proportion of the faith." Since the word "proportion" is analogia, a great many interpreters, in my very humble opinion, have been misled in their conclusions. The Greek word is one which expresses relationship of a right or proper nature. Cremer says it is "the coincidence or agreement existing or demanded according to the standard of the several relations."

     I do not hold that the prophets were human teletype machines automatically transcribing what was fed by a recording angel to the celestial "wire system" from beyond space. For this reason they were placed under the obligation to speak that which was in agreement with the revealed faith. They could not go beyond, add to, amend, or subtract from the revelation. The "proportion of faith" was the criterion for transmission to men, in order that our faith should not stand in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.

     2. Ministering. No word in sacred scripture has become more distorted in popular usage than this one, which is from diakonia, service. It has been transliterated to become our word deacon, yet in our lack of concern for the language of the Spirit, few in our day think of the deacons as the ministers of the congregation. I constantly receive communications upon letterheads which list three groups: Minister, Elders, Deacons. Occasionally there will be included an Associate Minister, that is an associate slave or servant, whatever that might be.

     All such usage would have been so much mumbo-jumbo in the primitive community of the faith where every child of God was a priest, everyone was a minister, and they were all associates in serving God and one another. The only special congregational ministers were the deacons, who served to extend the arm of the body to relieve the needs of the suffering saints.

     No one can determine the nature of the service to be rendered from the word for "minister." It is applied to serving food by Martha, and caring for temporal needs by the mother-in-law of Peter. One was ministering when he served tables or filled waterpots. There are two ways by which men can obscure meanings and do despite to the language of the Spirit. One is to take a general term and limit it to a specific, the other is to take a specific term and make it general. The first error is committed in this case, and it is compounded by the fact that the specific term seldom even includes the transliterated one.

     The gift of "ministry" embraces every form or act of service. It describes feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick, or sharing with those who are in prison. Every deed performed to relieve any need or enter into any suffering is ministry. We are guilty of making sad mistakes when we refer to ministry as related only to proclaiming the word, and stewardship only as related to handling money, for we take two noble terms and squeeze them into a narrow and restricted compass.

     That there are those who have a natural gift for teaching others is obvious to every school administrator. It involves more than merely having degrees in education. Many who have sophisticated degrees do not possess the power to communicate thought, while others with less formal attainments can

[Page 167]

inspire students to greater heights. A true teacher, motivated by appreciation for the subject and love of the students is possessed of charisma.

     4. Exhortation. It is important to remember that one may be a good instructor while not having the gift of exhortation. Teaching and exhorting are not the same at all. The first deals primarily with providing facts not previously known. The second consists of encouragement to do that which one already knows to be right. It is stimulation to act, to get on with the task. Instruction seeks to overcome ignorance, exhortation to overthrow apathy and indifference. One kindles the fire, the other stirs it up. The educator shares facts, the exhorter shares faith. One provides the road map, and the other starts the engine.

The original is parakaleo, to call to a person, from kaleo, to call. It was used for firefighters who called to a person to jump from a building which was aflame. It was used for a coach or trainer who called for a runner to exert an extra burst of speed. It was used for a captain who cried out to his men to follow him in storming a fort. It is quite obvious that it is a word which is intended to galvanize others into action and urge them on to the fulfillment of their duty.

     5. Giving. That there are those with a charisma for giving no one can doubt. Some who give do it with such ill-will as to undo the good effect of their sharing. There are those who make the recipients feel inferior and unworthy. There are others who, like the Pharisees, sound the trumpet of publicity and use their giving as a means of enhancing their own image rather to extend actual help.

     The Authorized Version says that the gift of giving is to be done with simplicity, and this is a great word. In the Greek it is haplotes, and it is one of those terms which seem to catch up some of the finest qualities and noblest characteristic to which mankind can attain. The usage in literature sometimes indicates simplicity and sincerity, and at other times generosity. The reason for this is interesting.

     Haplous is the word for single, as diplous is for double. That which is single is undivided in its attention or unwavering in affection. It represents a unity, a simplicity, as opposed to duplicity, or deception. You will recall that Jesus said, "Let your eye be single," that is, without hypocrisy or sham.

     One who is truly generous concentrates his attention upon the need of another, acting with undivided concern to relieve the situation. He bestows what he has to correct it, regardless of cost. So the word means liberality, or generosity when used in this connection. To be able to do this without reticence or regret is a gift, a charisma. When one can come to the aid of another without making him feel unworthy, or in debt, it is truly a blessing.

     The word occurs in 2 Corinthians 8:2, where Paul speaks of "the riches of your liberality." The New English Version renders it by "lavishly open-handed." It occurs again in 1 Corinthians 9:11, and the King James Version has "enriched in everything to all bountifulness," while the New English Version reads, "rich enough to be generous." So the term certainly excludes narrow, stingy and niggardly attitudes, but it includes more than just giving money freely. It takes into account that kind of sharing which never deprecates the person while ministering to him in his distress.

     6. Ruling. It is probably unfortunate that proistemi was not translated by the word "leadeth" instead of "ruleth." When we use the word rule we immediately associate it with the idea of authority, or exercise of power or dominion over others. This has led to abuses in every generation, including our own. As an example, we have been taught that elders have been placed in office to rule the congregation, and in some places the word of these men is law. Their opinion becomes the official interpretation of that congregation, and those affiliated with it must subscribe to it, or remain absolutely

[Page 168]

silent. To utter a contrary opinion, will invoke the wrath and discipline of "the powers that be," and one may be cast out of the synagogue for exercise of free speech.

     Of course, this is absurd and asinine. No such authority has been invested in any man or group of men. In the first place the word "office" is not used as it is in the political realm. In the scripture it does not refer to a position, but to a function. My arm does not hold an elected office in my body, but as an integral member, it has a function. That function is a special one but it is no more special than that of any other member. It stems from ability and qualification to fulfill a task. It would be a silly gesture to try and appoint my nose to do the work of my mouth. It is not qualified to so function.

     In the second place, the system we have devised is diametrically opposed to the express teaching of Jesus who said it should not be thus. "You know that in the world, rulers lord it over their subjects, and their great men make them feel the weight of authority: but it shall not be so with you." We have adopted the way of the world and forgotten the way of Jesus. There is no greater imposition than to try and force a man to conform to a thought pattern which contravenes his honest personal conviction. To attempt this under threat or coercion is tyranny over the mind and despotism over the heart.

     In spite of the fact that Jesus said it should not be so, it is so in a great many places. Elders assume prerogatives bordering upon infallibility. Their judgment must not be questioned nor their authority abridged. Together with the preacher whom they hire, they rule with a tight rein and an iron hand. It is assumed that men who hold high positions in the scholastic or business world are imbecilic when it comes to the Bible, and wholly incapable of directing their spiritual destiny. All decisions must be made for them. Their only responsibility is to acquiesce, remain dumb and give their money to support the system.

     Such hierarchical domination has developed as a part of our sectarian stance. It is maintained through fear of what men may do unto us. The word for "ruleth" in our passage is proistemi, literally, to stand before, that is, to preside. In 1 Timothy 5:17, the New English Version has the interesting rendering, "Elders who do well as leaders should be reckoned worthy of a double stipend, in particular those who labor at preaching and teaching." The word for diligence signifies zeal and earnestness. Those who have the ability to preside should set an example of diligent concern.

     7. Showing mercy. The extension of compassion will be greatly enhanced by those who have the gift to demonstrate empathy. I know good brethren who probably ought to be barred from hospital visitation. They will undo in fifteen minutes what a corps of physicians and nurses have worked a week to accomplish. They are awkward in the presence of the patient, saying and doing all of the wrong things. They stay too long, talk too loud, and sit on the edge of the bed.

     It is no particular comfort to a patient to tell him that he looks far worse than you expected to find him, nor does it help to point out that both your uncle and brother-in-law died within the last six months from exactly the same condition. It does not cheer one up to inform him that the surgeon who is going to operate on him the next day is as rough as the bark on a hickory tree and was probably responsible for killing your Aunt Gertrude.

     Some well-meaning folks who love statistics on the dead and dying, give a patient a running account of the progress, or lack of it, of everyone in the congregation. With a countenance as cheerful as if they had just swallowed a tablespoon of vinegar, and a voice as doleful as a losing candidate saying farewell to his campaign workers, they drone on and

[Page 169]

on, while the patient wishes they would drop dead and he would recover, but doubts that either will happen.

     On the other hand, I know some folk whose very presence will brighten a hospital ward. Even the professional groaners, who carry on rhythmically, resolved that if they cannot feel well no one else who is in earshot will either, desist while such folks are there. Sometimes they even forget to start up again for quite awhile after they are gone. They spread happiness where there is heartbreak and sympathy where there is sadness. Their speech and touch are both soft and soothing. They are charismatic.

     Mercy is from eleos. It refers to an open and outward manifestation of pity. W. E. Vine says, "It assumes a need on the part of him who receives it, and resources adequate to meet the need on the part of him who shows it." It is a quality of which we need more manifestation and daily demonstration.

     1. Each one of us is to make a sober estimate of his ability, based not upon an exalted opinion of self, but upon an assessment of the gift of God as bestowed by grace.

     2. We are not bound together as members of an organization, a concept for which there was no term in the Greek. Rather, we are functioning members of an organism, bound together not by a mere fraternal tie or pledge of allegiance. Our real relationship is to Jesus as the center of life and activity.

     3. There are no useless members of the body of Christ, as there are no superfluous organs in the human body. Paul declares that "those members of the body which seem to be more feeble, are necessary" (1 Cor. 12:22).

     4. The unity we enjoy is not an achievement of men, but a creation of the Spirit. We are not one simply because of an agreement to work together, but we work together because we are one. We function naturally and normally as organs in a body. Only abnormal, afflicted or diseased members do not function.

     5. We are interrelated and made into a cohesive unit by the indwelling Spirit. We do not surrender our individuality or prerogatives to one another, and are not to be conformists to anyone but Jesus. He is great enough to accept us all as we are, and under the umbrella of his love we can find shelter for all of our diversities.

     6. Any aptitude or endowment which enables us to perform any function in the body is a gift of grace. We distinguish between them as natural or super-natural, but this has to do with the method of their bestowal. There is really no indication that God makes such a differentiation. In any event, they are all charismata, so whether the body functions solely through gifts immediately bestowed, or through gifts naturally received, or through a combination of both, it is charismatic.

     The body of Christ has always functioned and always will function through gifts of God. Since there is no such thing as a non-charismatic age or era, it follows that, to separate and designate a certain period as a charismatic age, is to make a distinction unwarranted by fact or revelation. Instead of glorifying God by such a procedure, it rather speaks derogatorily of divine concern. It makes it appear that God withdraws all aid from the members until they make a mess of things and then steps in to perform a direct rescue operation.

     But if the church can exist and function for any length of time without charismata, it can do so interminably, or until Jesus comes. And since God has shown himself to be a divine economist,

[Page 170]

exerting only enough power to fill a need, and no more, there would be no need of occasional outbursts designated as charismatic.

     My conclusion is that all of us as individuals must employ the gifts we possess for the good of the whole body, and the body must provide an opportunity for us to grow and develop within the framework of fellowship. No one can say to another that he has no need of him. Each must receive the others as God received him. If we can conduct ourselves in this manner the world will see that we are truly "members one of another."

     In our next issue we will conclude this series on Romans, and then all of the issues for the year will be gathered and bound in a beautiful volume to be called "One Great Chapter." You may place your order in advance for this book, at the price of $2.95 per copy, payable on delivery. The supply will be limited to one thousand volumes, and we urge you to write at once if you are interested.