IrContent

Ministry used to be a verb. Apparently now it’s a noun.

I’ve been out of seminary for a few years now and I’ve noticed a trend lately that I think represents a very poor way of thinking about ministry. Many of the students and alumni I see these days are forming “ministries” instead of just going out and doing ministry. I can’t tell you how many students I know right now whose goal for getting educated is to “have a speaking and writing ministry.” Where are the pastors? Where are the teachers? Where are the evangelists? Ephesians 4 does not list “speakers and writers” as gifted positions God gave for the establishment of the Church!

Now, what these people are doing is a good thing so far as it goes, but the problem is that instead of involving themselves with the local church or schools they put up a false front and then attempt to fund their “ministry” by requesting donations. The thinking seems to be that doing ministry involves these steps:

1. “Found” your ministry. (By “found” is meant “think up a title and make a website out of it.” The title should include words like National, International, Institute, Center, or Society.)
2. Give yourself the title of “founder,” “director,” “president,” or whatever. (Note that from this point on you must never refer to yourself in the first person, rather you should use “us,” “we,” and “The Ministry.”)
3. Get 501(c) 3 status for your “ministry” so you can accept tax exempt donations for your “ministry work.”
4. Hit the road doing “speaking engagements” and ask for money for “The Ministry” so you can speak more.

The question these “ministries” need to ask themselves is why they should be siphoning off funding for the local church when it is the local church that should be paying them to preach or teach in the first place. What are these donations for anyway? If they are speaking they should be getting paid. And if they aren’t making enough doing speaking engagements then they should either get better or get another job! In the good ole’ days seminaries fed the churches. Students came to seminary in order to get training in how to support the Church - not compete with it by creating their own little tax-exempt solo careers. We need less superheroes and more laborers.

Sure, there will always be the Billy Grahams and James Dobsons of the world whose ministries are making a huge difference and require support from churches. But many today think that they should instantly be paid full time speakers just because they have a few PowerPoint presentations made from their class notes. It’s like the debt problem Americans face today. Kids graduate High School with nicer cars than people who have been working for twenty years and think they should be in a 3,000 square foot home by the time they’re out of college. They see the results of a lifetime of labor and think that’s just what they should have; so they go into massive debt instead of earning the income. In the same way, these “ministry founders” seem to think that being a Ravi Zacharias or a William Lane Craig involves nothing more than being able to parrot real scholars’ material in a 45 minute seminar. Then they beg for money because “the world needs to hear this stuff!”

I agree that the world needs to hear many of these messages - but it needs to hear them from all believers. And that requires training all believers (which is what Church is supposed to do). And I am talking about real training - not just weekend seminars. Churches and schools are the best places to prepare people for that sort of ministry - but what if all they do is run out and “found speaking ministries”? Sure, if these “ministers” become so popular that they can do it full time, fine. But people should not think that this is just what ministry is and simply ask people to fund them.

I think what irritates me the most, though, is the image manipulation. What right does an average seminary student or graduate have to act as though they are heading up some huge ministry when it is really just them trying to get paid to speak here and there? This is not doing ministry, this is spin doctoring. Does Gary Habermas have “The International Center for Resurrection Studies”? Does Tom Howe have “The Institute for Classical Hermeneutical Training”? And why doesn’t Win Corduan host “The National Society for the Philosophy of World Religions”? Because these “ministries” don’t exist (even though these guys could legitimately get them going if they so desired!).

Worse, if the terms used in titles like these are taken in their natural sense then it might even be seen as lying. These are not “centers” or “institutes” and they are not “national” or “international.” They are just people with websites. And that is enough! Why act like there is more to it than that? That is why I have dougbeaumont.org - not because of vanity, but because that’s all my ministry is: me, and what I do at school, church, and the venues where I speak. I am not “international,” I have no “institute,” and as far as I know no “societies” have formed because of me (unless they are secret societies and I have not been invited!).

Having a catchy title for a ministry is fine. Asking for donations because someone really can’t work and do her ministry well at the same time might be appropriate if her church cannot support her. But let’s be honest people . . . fake storefronts are no way to begin a legitimate ministry.

OK, this one could get me into trouble, so let me state this up front: I believe that all Christians should practice evangelism. OK? Please don’t forget that as you read the rest. The image above is not my opinion, rather it demonstrates the attitude of many people in America today toward Christians sharing the gospel with them. Now the gospel is offensive to a world that thinks it is doing just fine and doesn’t want to have to deal with a sovereign God with demands that go beyond the world’s standards. Fair enough. But there is a growing animosity toward Christians today that was not the case 20-30 years ago that is making the evangelist’s job even more difficult. For many believers this makes the prospect of “going out witnessing” even more terrifying than than just its public speaking or objection answering aspects. Yet church members continue to be berated for their discomfort (which MUST equate to an unloving or uncaring heart!). The remedy is often training materials or classes, and some are quite good. Yet the problem remains.

I’ll be honest, when I evangelize it is out of guilt - plain and simple. I know many others would admit to having the same motivation. Why is sharing our faith such an issue? Is it just our flesh? (It’s not that I don’t want to talk to people about the truth - in fact I enjoy it. I just don’t want to have to start the conversation!) Is it fear of man? (For me at least it is not simply a lack of courage. I’d take on a room full of angry atheists over handing out tracts or knocking on doors  any day of the week!) Do we just need better techniques? (A lot of us don’t like knocking on doors or approaching perfect strangers for any reason, so no matter how good the latest method seems it’s still very uncomfortable and unnatural - like something is just wrong with the situation.) Hmmmmm.

I have been doing some reading on evangelism that compares harvesting to sowing. Harvesting refers to the “soul winning” and focuses on the person who actually leads someone to belief in Jesus Christ. Sowing is the work done to prepare someone to come to faith and focuses on the work of the “pre-evangelist” (apologists, cultural influencers, friends, etc.). This is a biblical comparison (Jn. 4:35-38). The author’s argument is that the American Church’s typical evangelistic strategies are based on an outdated model that was only successful during a time when the fields were ripe. In other words, when America was a Christian-friendly nation (because of previous sowing), evangelism as an activity could be limited to harvesting - and the techniques of evangelism reflected that.

The time to begin re-sowing was reached nearly a generation ago but because the harvest was still going so well no one noticed. As the field began to show signs of barrenness, instead of preparing the ground for the next harvest time the Church simply asked for more (or better) harvesters. Meanwhile the world was busy sowing. It quietly undermined the foundations of Christianity so that today we are trying to harvest the “world’s field” so to speak. The typical non-Christian today is biblically illiterate, not open to absolute truth claims, and is sometimes even hostile to Christianity. Perhaps it is time to change tactics. Evangelistic strategy needs to be matched to the current cycle. If we don’t start sowing soon there may be no harvest in the future – and all the harvesters in the world won’t change that.

But many in the Church today still only see “true” evangelism as a proclamation / confrontation. After all, “gospel” and “evangel” are actually from the same root word – thus one is not truly evangelizing unless the gospel (e.g., 1 Cor. 15:1-11) is proclaimed right? So the goal is simply to get the word out and the job is done – what the hearer does with it is his problem. Now, this position assumes something that, just for fun, I’d like to question. The assumption is that all Christians are commanded to evangelize. (Before reading on, please remember my disclaimer from sentence one!). A good idea at this point might be to ask where we get this idea from (and maybe what evangelism even means).

Where We Get the Idea

In my typically academic manner I turned to that great bastion of scholarship, Google, and typed: “Are all Christians commanded to evangelize?” I read every web page on the initial search results page and found that discovering a universal command to evangelize is not as easy as one might think.

The Great Commission is often at the top of the list. But two problems emerge immediately: First, the command was given to the disciples – not to the Church at large. Thus, an argument has to be made for universal application, but most of the time writers simply beg the question and assert their conclusion. Typical responses will go something like, “Since the Great Commission is given to all Christians . . . (fill in the writer’s view of the Great Commission).” Argumentation is rarely offered as to how this command to the disciples equates to a general command to the Church. It is also revealing that it is almost always the Mt. 28:18-20 version of the Great Commission and not Mk. 16:15-18 that is cited as a proof text (see also Luke’s version of the Great Commission: Acts 1:4-8 cf. Lk. 24:44-49). Are all Christians supposed to follow all these commands as well? Answering “no” would not seem to be out of line as there are plenty of specific commands that Jesus gave to the disciples that individual members of the Church feel free to ignore (practically if not theoretically). These include performing baptisms, discipling people, washing each other’s feet, etc. Of course, dereliction in some areas would not excuse further negligence – but it does call into question why this command to the disciples is generalized to every member of the Church when so many others are not.

The second problem is that the word “evangelize” is not used in the Great Commission. The command is to “make disciples.” Of course, in order to be made a disciple one has to be a Christian, which means that at some point evangelism had to take place, but that does not necessarily mean that every phase of the process is every disciplers’ job. Technically, someone who never shared the gospel even once, but who stepped in after people’s conversion and taught them would be fulfilling this command. Thus, the Great Commission does not seem to require that all Christians practice typical “evangelism” (even if the command is generalized to all Christians in the first place).

Other Proof Texts that fail to convince me include:

• John 15:2 which says nothing of evangelism. It is pure speculation that bearing fruit is “winning souls” and actually does not fit the context at all.
• Rom. 10:14-15 which is specifying Jewish missions, not the world’s. Further, it is stated that in order to hear someone must be sent. If someone (rather than all) is sent then others are not. And this is what the Church did – it sent missionaries, not every single person in the Church. If nothing else, this scenario fits the evangelize-when-gifted view so it cannot be used against it.
• 1 Pt. 2:9 which commands believers to proclaim God’s praises – this is not like typical evangelism methods.
• 1 Pt. 3:15 which commands believers to give an answer to those who ask – a rare method indeed!
• 3 Jn. 5-8 which is not praising Gaius for evangelizing (nor commanding him to do so), but for helping those who were evangelizing.

Now, bad arguments or misused proof texts do not make a conclusion false; but the fact that these seem to be the best people can come up with to support the idea that every Christian must be an evangelist (again, in the usual sense) make me wonder if maybe we’re missing something.

Spiritual Gifts seem to present something of hurdle as well. Some will point out that evangelism is a gift that not all believers have been given, and so reason that not all Christians need to practice evangelism. Now, it is clear that God commands certain people to do certain things based on their giftedness:

• Acts 6:2-3 And the twelve summoned the congregation of the disciples and said, “It is not desirable for us to neglect the word of God in order to serve tables.” But select from among you, brethren, seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge of this task.
• Rom. 12:3-4 . . . we have many members in one body and all the members do not have the same function.
• 1 Cor. 12:7 To each person the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the benefit of all.
• Eph. 4:11-12 It was he who gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, that is, to build up the body of Christ.
• 1 Pt. 4:10 Just as each one has received a gift, use it to serve one another as good stewards of the varied grace of God.

The usual response is that Christians are still commanded to do things outside their specific gifting (like giving), so not being gifted as an evangelist is no excuse for not evangelizing (especially if there is a command somewhere that all Christians do so). But there are a few problems with this response. First, in this particular gift list (Eph. 4:11-12) Paul is naming offices – not simply spiritual motivations or skills. No one makes the argument that all Christians should teach, prophesy, or pastor churches! Yet these offices are included in the same list. Second, the specific reason these particular gifts are given is to “to equip the saints for the work of ministry, that is, to build up the body of Christ.” It seems that these gifts are given for building up believers – not making them into believers. But what need is there for a gifted evangelist among those who have already believed? It may be that the gifted evangelist is a trainer too – a discipler who helps believers hone their gifts. It all depends on what evangelism is, doesn’t it?

What Is Evangelism?

Maybe what we have been taught to think of as evangelism is too narrow a definition. Perhaps the activity of evangelism is a process that includes both preparation and proclamation. Neither Jesus nor Paul “evangelized” at every opportunity. In fact, for the last half of Jesus’ ministry He kept away from the unbelieving crowds (even discouraged understanding for some – see Mk. 4:10-11) and focused on discipling the twelve. Paul spent years at some churches training them before he left on other missionary journeys. Yet one would hardly claim that Jesus and Paul were not evangelists!

If evangelism as a general practice is more than just the last step (harvesting), then both proclamation and preparation (sowing) are important and might give rise to different giftings. And if the harvester and sower have different gifts, and thus different responsibilities, then the roles of the both should be equally encouraged, taught, and supported by the Church. This is not to say that a sower coming upon ripe fruit should not know how to harvest it - but the opposite is true as well. Harvesters that do not know how to sow may be attempting to pick fruit that is not yet ripe (and note the potential result in Jesus’ other comparison of evangelism and farming in Mk. 4:3-9). For although the harvester gets more accolades (although he shouldn’t – Jn. 4:37-3 and perhaps more satisfaction, in the end both will rejoice together (Jn. 4:36).

So, to avoid any confusion I will repeat what I said at the beginning of this post: I believe that all Christians should practice evangelism. I just don’t think that any particular model of evangelism is how all must do it.

The other day I was preparing to give a lecture on Jesus’ use of parables. If you have heard anything about Jesus you have probably heard that “Jesus taught in parables.” Most of the time when this statement is uttered it is in support of some teaching methodology or genre study issue. My purpose in the lesson was to show that this sentiment is misplaced and to deal with an apologetic issue that is raised by the real reason that Jesus sometimes taught in parables.

But I could not remember the verses that dealt with the question. So I turned to Google and found a web page (which shall remain nameless but whose title is extremely close to that of this article). There enough copyright warnings on it to scare me away from quoting any of it directly, but in summary the writer suggests several reasons why he thinks Jesus taught in parables. These include:

• Parables were the teaching style of the day (which makes me wonder what made the disciples curious about Jesus’ use of them in the first place).
• Parables allow teachers to get away with more (he says Jesus only got in trouble when he claimed to be the Son of God, but what about the Sabbath controversies or forgiving sins?).
• Parables can be used effectively after the fact (he says the apostles later explained Jesus’ parables to the crowds as they evangelized. I know of no instance of this in the New Testament, and in the only example he gives (from Acts 2) they certainly did no such thing.)
• The other reasons mostly revolve around the usefulness of story telling versus making direct statements, which he then applies to modern teaching and preaching methods.

It’s all very nice and sermonly but there is one [additional] problem: It’s not true.

Now, fasten your seat belts as I deliver my stunning process for discovering his mistake. Prepare yourself for a hermeneutical excursion worthy of the finest scholars of any age. If you can master the unbelievably powerful method of Bible interpretation that I am about to impart, you will elevate yourself to dizzying heights of academic excellence. The key to answering the question “Why did Jesus teach in parables?” is . . . IS . . . found in the second half of the sentence! Imagine that! Jesus was asked why He taught in parables and He actually answered. Unfortunately, the writer only partially quoted this sentence at the beginning of his article (even ending the partial quote with a period as if the sentence actually ended there - see example above).

Now, the writer of the article might have gotten confused because the sentence is broken up into separate verses, but this hardly excuses his misquote, or his non-biblical response. Just for fun let’s go crazy and read the whole sentence: The text of the NIV of Mark 4:10-12 reads:

“When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, . . .”

Wait a minute. “So that . . .” Hmmmmm. Might that phrase indicate a purpose about to be revealed??? OK, I can’t stand the suspense any longer - here’s the rest:

“But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, ‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’”

Sometimes it’s the little things.

When I teach Bible Study Methods one of the things I stress is that of the three standard steps in study (Observation, Interpretation, and Application) it is often during the (seemingly) simple observation of the text that mistakes are made. It is really somewhat shocking how many interpretation or application mistakes are caused by the failure to simply read the text. It does make for good sermon fodder though.

Now just so I won’t leave you hanging, let’s return to the apologetic issue I wanted to raise in class. Why would God bother to incarnate and spend over 30 years as a human being only to come to those He wished to teach and speak so as to obscure His teaching??? The answer is . . .

Ha! Caught you! Jesus already answered that question too (see above)! The unanswered question is why this was His response. And answering that question involves knowing things like:

• Who Jesus’ audience is here (which is clear from the context - start at verse 1).
• What other passages have to say about the event (i.e., Matthew 13:1-17).
• Why Jesus quotes Isaiah 6 here.
• When it happened. Specifically, knowing the timing of this event in relation to Jesus’ overall ministry. This can be confusing without a Gospel Harmony, but Matthew records this event in chapter 13 which comes right after chapter 12 . . . (hint hint!).

I won’t spoil the joy of discovery for you. But in the meantime I suggest the following:

1. Always look up Bible citations.
2. Don’t assume verses are being considered in context.
3. Look for answers in the text first!

Several years ago I agreed to debate a Muslim named Nadir Ahmed from Examine The Truth. I was reluctant because we had already debated (via email) before and it was fairly fruitless. However, a friend at Answering-Islam.Org encouraged me to go along with it. So we had the debate. It was also fairly fruitless and I pretty much forgot about it. But recently people have started mentioning it again. Weird. Well, I discovered that the debate has been posted on YouTube and several other websites (I have no idea who posted it nor have I listened to them, so I can only assume they have not been edited). Well, there you have it. So I decided to use this as an opportunity to comment on the debate and discuss biblical morality as well.

To begin with, Nadir refused to debate me according to a format which would have allowed for carefully considered responses to opening statements. The format he demanded was this: First there would be two opening statements, each about 15 minutes long (Nadir “volunteered” to go first, and then announced that he would also be the moderator . . . unbelievable!) Second, there would be a nonstop “crossfire session” where we each would get 60 seconds to ask and answer questions of each other (Nadir went first here too, which pretty much tanked any possibility of me getting the time to ask my own questions. I learned that falsehood favors the sound bite - it’s just too easy to ask a question in 60 seconds that might require 60 minutes to answer adequately. Unfortunately I was not prepared to take advantage of this format flaw as was Nadir). Finally, we had some audience Q&A for about 30 minutes (in this section we only were allowed to respond to questions specifically asked of us. Also, as this was a “G” rated room, we were warned and / or muted several times by the room boss when sexual issues arose. This made it extremely difficult in a debate concerning sexual ethics!).

Nadir’s basic contention is that the Bible does not speak to the moral issues of our day and that therefore the kind of rampant sin Christians speak out against is actually biblically allowed and tacitly approved. Nadir’s basic (and completely unproved or even argued for) assumption is that if the Bible does not specifically and in great detail address an issue then it must be acceptable. Nadir’s example was that since the Bible does not say anything about driving cars, then obviously driving cars must be acceptable. Further, anything that is acceptable to God is also encouraged by God. Thus, if wearing a miniskirt is not specifically addressed in detail then God must want people to wear them. My position was that this is not how Christian ethics works. The Bible itself does not affirm this system of moral authority. In fact, the Bible teaches that there are multiple ways in which God has revealed His moral will including conscience, wisdom, the Holy Spirit, Government, etc. (See the chart below for more details.) Taken as a whole, God’s revelation is sufficient for all moral decisions (2 tim. 3:16-17) so any lack is on our part - not the Bible’s.

click image for full size

Concerning the specifics of the debate, my opening argument countered the idea that the Christian must be able to produce a specific and detailed Bible verse for every possible moral scenario. Christian morality is based on both general revelation (conscience) and special revelation (scriptural commands). This argument completely undercut Nadir’s position, yet he never rebutted it. In fact, Nadir’s contention that Christians may only use the Bible actually counters his own position because the Bible itself commands the use of extra-biblical sources of morality! Nadir also has a penchant for pitting the Bible (a book) against Islam (a religion). But Islam’s teachings are not limited to the Quran any more than Christianity is limited only to the Bible. Extra-scriptural writings and traditional interpretations are appealed to in Islam just like in Christianity, yet Nadir will have nothing of these kinds of sources when referenced by Christians. This is a classic case of special pleading.

As to Nadir’s constant demand for specific and detailed rules, I pointed out that the while Bible does have many instances of these it also makes use of general categorical commands. For example, some argue that the Bible does not have anything to say about an abortion procedure. But because abortion fits the category of murder abortion a sin because the Bible commands us not to murder. I do not need to know specific details about how a murder is done to know it is wrong. Nadir did not successfully rebut this argument either. So even if I had not provided one shred of biblical refutation against his opening arguments I still would have won because the understanding of Christian morality that I presented completely undermined the foundation of his position. Because Nadir never refuted (nor, in some cases, even attempted to refute) my points about Christian morality being based on more than specific, detailed, biblical commands, I was free throughout the debate to reference conscience, wisdom, the Holy Spirit, etc. to bolster the historic Christian understanding of these issues.

Nadir’s tactic was to argue based on descriptions of actions he claimed are moral evils (or at least things most Christians would say are evil - other than the millions he claims he knows who disagree) that the Bible encourages by not saying anything about them. He concludes that Islam is superior because it does speak directly to these issues. He did not back up his unwarranted claim that Christian morality must be found in direct and specific commands in the Bible. Since I had argued for categorical commands, conscience, the witness of the Holy Spirit, Government authority, etc., for Nadir to win the debate he would have had to argue against their use. But he did not. He also appealed to certain question-begging word definitions which I countered by quoting from the authoritative Greek Lexicon (see notes below). He then reverted to saying that because the Bible was not written in English we can’t know what it means anyway. Well which is it? First he argues be misrepresenting the meaning of biblical words, then claims that the meaning of biblical words cannot be known!

I answered Nadir’s arguments with appeals to scriptural word meanings in their context plus the varied sources of morality available to the scripturally knowledgeable Christian and he simply kept responding with his mantra of “the Bible doesn’t teach this.” Repetition, however, is not an argument. The problem is that when Nadir’s arguments are seriously challenged he often simply returns to his original conclusion as if no counter-argument had been made. Then, when he predictably receives repeated refutations of his repeated assertions he concludes that he has “hammered his opponent into merely repeating himself.” But this is not sound argumentation, this is posturing in the hopes that the louder and more repetitive one is the more believable one becomes. Unfortunately this trick works in a sound bite style debate with an untrained audience. In a debate two sides bring arguments to the table and then attempt to rebut each other’s arguments while supporting their own. Thus, there is an objective component to whether or not a debate was won. My position undercut the foundation of Nadir’s entire position, yet he did not offer a refutation. Rhetorical issues notwithstanding, you can’t win a debate if you don’t answer your opponent! This is not me being arrogant; it’s just how debates work (for some third party reviews see soc.religion.islam).

SUMMARY

Nadir’s fundamental assumption of a flawed ethical idealism may obscure the fact his arguments prove nothing more than that the Bible is not as specific as he would like it to be. Well, I agree - the Bible is not as specific as he would like it to be. The real question is whether or not this is a problem. If it is this has yet to be proven. Just because someone might like God to have done things differently does not prove God wrong. If God decided to use categorical laws and extra-biblical sources to communicate His moral will then who is Nadir to question that decision? I am willing to bet on God as the better judge of how to communicate morality!

In fact, there was one question during the Q&A that beautifully illustrated the difficulty in Nadir’s idealized model for moral authority. A girl asked what Christianity and Islam would think of a person marrying a person who had undergone “sex-change” surgery. I answered that because of the nature of humanity the person’s gender was not actually changed, therefore it would still fall into the category of homosexuality. But Nadir had nothing to say! He admitted that he had no answer for her. This is exactly what happens when one demands a specific and detailed rule for every moral decision. Once something new comes along you have no direction. Nadir could not answer because the Koran says nothing specifically or in detail about this matter, but what is worse - according to his principle of “if it doesn’t say anything about it it must be acceptable and endorsed” he should have concluded that Islam endorses people having sex change operations and getting married! Now of course Islam teaches no such thing, but Nadir cannot explain why it does not teach that based on his own system of moral interpretation.

The problem that Nadir does not seem to grasp is that the letter of the law does not promote wisdom, character, or virtue - which are the results of thinking through problems and acting rightly regardless of fear of punishment. Islam offers many specific and detailed laws (as did the pharasaical form of Judaism that Jesus so despised), but this offers almost nothing in character development (Nadir provided his own example of this fact when he said he would like to try drugs but hasn’t because the Quran says not to). But acting morally merely out of fear of punishment is no more virtuous than my dog peeing outside to avoid a spanking.

Muslims may persist in claiming that the Bible is inadequate because it does not provide the detail they want. But we Christians will, as we have for the last 2,000 years, continue to be held accountable to moral virtues anyway.

“MODESTY”

1 Tim. 2:9 - “Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly [aidos] and discreetly [sophrosune].”

aidos:
1. modesty (of women 1 Ti 2:9)
2. reverence, respect

sophrosune:
1. reasonableness, rationality, mental soundness
2. good judgment, moderation, self-control.

“LUST”

epithumia:
desire, longing, craving.
1. as a neutral term, desires for other things Mk 4:19.
2. in a good sense have a longing for something Phil 1:23
3. in a bad sense as a desire for something forbidden in accordance with physical desire alone to satisfy the desires of the body: gambling, drunkenness and gluttony are called many foolish desires (1 Ti 6:9); youthful desires (2 Ti 2:22); in accordance w. their own desires (4:3); the desires that ruled over you formerly, when you were ignorant (1 Pt 1:14) defiling passion (2 Pt 2:10). deceptive desires (Eph. 4:22).