This morning is the proper care and feeding of elders, the proper care and feeding of elders, and we are coming to this section now in chapter 5 verses 17 to 25 dealing with elders, and it's interesting that, you know, we began chapter 5, we learned initially how we are to interrelate with older men, older women in the church, and then how we are to interrelate with younger men, younger women in the church. Then we get into this long section here from verses 3 to 16 with how we are to take care of widows, and that gives us an indication there of how we are to interact or interrelate with all of those in need, and the responsibilities of the church with respect to that. We looked at elders back in chapter 3 tackling the qualifications of elders, but now here in chapter 5, Paul takes this opportunity with Timothy to move on here to elders again to discuss as we honored older men, older women, we honored younger men, younger women, we honored widows, and now we're going to honor elders' leadership in the church. And so the key word here, just as it has been, is that word honor, and we're going to look at several points today as we walk through this text dealing with the proper care and feeding of elders in the church. One, where to provide for them. Two, where to protect them. Three, we're going to look at principles related to rebuking a sinning elder. And then lastly, we'll look at principles for appointing them. So let's look at point one. We're going to provide for them. The scripture here gives us instruction that we're to provide for elders. Verse 17 says this.   Now that office here that is in question or that is in the light of Paul's teaching, instruction here is the office of elder. It's interesting here that it uses another word. It uses presbyteroi here. It's a term meeting elder, means overseer or pastor. Those words are all used interchangeably in the scripture. We saw that when we looked at elders in chapter three. That example in Acts 20 of how those words, overseer, bishop, Episcopos, presbyteros are all used interchangeably of the same office. Now here, there's a range of duties that is mentioned here with ruling well. We'll get into some of that and laboring in word and doctrine. And so this word presbyteros is used meaning elder. And it really points to where the word in chapter three pointed more to duties. Here, the word really points to the dignity of the office, the sense of honor, the sense of dignity that goes along with the office of elder, goes along with the office of pastor or bishop or overseer. And so Paul then, after sort of using that word, which is somewhat different and that informs our understanding, Paul then makes a distinction here between all elders, all right, and then those that rule well, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine. So a couple of points from this so that we understand and we don't get off track here. One is this, is that all elders should be honored. We know that from the rest of the word of God. Those in leadership in the church should be honored. In 1 Thessalonians chapter five, beginning in verse 12, the Bible says, and we urge you brethren to recognize those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you and to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake. It's right off the bat from verse 17 here. We know that he's not distinguishing between sinning elders and those that don't work and those ruling elders and those that labor hard in word and doctrine. This really is speaking of all elders, all elders in Scripture are to be esteemed or are to be honored, okay? There are those elders that sin. There are those elders that don't work. We know that to be true. Those come under discipline, they won't be elders for long if you're going to follow the Bible. We're to honor all elders. Now, second point from verse 17 with respect to honoring elders here is that Paul distinguishes those in verse 17 that are worthy of double honor, okay? And it's those in 17 worthy of double honor who serve with a greater excellence or a greater commitment or a greater effort, maybe greater responsibility. There are those in verse 17 that are distinguished and there are two marks of that distinguishing, two characteristics that reflect those who are worthy of double honor. One here is that they rule well, but two is that they work harder or they work hard in the word and in doctrine. So the first thing to tackle is this idea of ruling well, okay? That's the word praiestemi in the Greek. It means to stand first or to super intend or to preside over, to be at the head, all right? So you've got this person who is at the head, he's supervising, super intending over the church, over the work of the church, standing first and he does that well and the word they're used for well means intrinsically good, means beautiful. It's honorable or good in appearance. It just is intrinsically good, okay? Now think about that for a moment. That could be translated with excellence. They do their work with excellence, but right off the bat, that does away with any kind of not beautiful, heavy-handed authoritarianism, right? That does away with any harshness. That does away with that heavy-handed abuse of authority that many have seen. The pastor is to rule intrinsically good with intrinsic beauty, with intrinsic excellence. It is to be a matter of excellence and not heavy-handedness, not harshness. It should be done with excellence, okay? So they rule well. They stand first and they do that in a way that is fitting, in a way that's intrinsically good. Secondly, it says they labor. They labor among you. They labor in word and in doctrine. And there's a key word there. It says at the beginning of that especially, and that's a pivotal word in this, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine. Many of your translations translate that especially. I think a better translation for that may be namely or particularly. It has that meaning also that those who are ruling well deserve to be counted worthy of double honor, namely or particularly those who labor in the word and doctrine. So some elders may not serve as prominent a role in that function in the church. All elders teach, right? But not all elders will serve quite as prominent a role in that area, or not labor as hard. But rest assured that the work of the ministry is to be a labor and all elders are to labor. Here this word for labor is the opposite of sloth, right? The opposite of idleness, the opposite of laziness. The ministry is no place for a lazy undisciplined man. No place for a man with no self-control. It is an office, a ministry, a work that requires toil. Here that word labor means to strive to the point of exhaustion. And this is the opposite of sloth. We saw that the young widows in the last section could be given to sloth or given to idleness. And out of that sloth and idleness, all kinds of sins flow, right? Here the elder, this presbyteros, cannot be slothful, cannot be idle. They must labor hard, right? Like the young widow, or like the older widow. Like the young widow, like the apathetic Christian, this sloth is the bane of the church. We have to understand it that way. We talk about apathy in the heart. That is the bane of the Christian existence in our day and age. There is much that lends itself to apathy that we have so much. We have need of nothing. It is so easy to slip into apathy, slip into indifference, to slip into sloth. We have to fight against that. It is the bane of the church. This word labor here speaks to tremendous effort.  Both together, rule well and labor point to great diligence with excellence, hard work with great quality or dignity, excellence and effort. Those both go together to make for an elder here who is worthy of double honor. And these are demanding duties. The one here, first word is word. They are to labor diligently in the word. And that is word for speak in the Greek. It is just speaking of public speaking. It is speaking of public exposition, exhortation, admonition. It is preaching. That is what it is there. They are to labor in preaching. They are to labor in the word. And that is spoken word. The next word there is doctrine, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine. That word is the word there for instruction. It translates the Greek word didosculia. It means to instruct, to teach. So there is a difference there between preaching and teaching. But those who rule well or those who are worthy of double honor, labor. Namely, particularly those who are laboring in preaching and teaching, in word and in doctrine. There are many who do not answer the demands of the office. And you can see that. There are many who have no discipline, no self-control, no preparation involved, no excellence. They are not feeding the people and we are very aware of those. And like I said, those should in a biblical church come under discipline for that. But those that do, those that are laboring in that way, those that are meeting the call, heating the call, exerting that effort, that striving the Bible calls for, let them be counted worthy of double honor. That word double honor there doesn't mean double pay. Some would like to think that and there are many Charismatics who seem to take that to heart. It means double pay. We are going to get rich off this deal. No. It doesn't mean double pay. It means twofold. It's like we use the word honor and honorarium. Those two words have distinct meanings, senses, connotations that we get from them. It means here honor. This double honor means a twofold honor. And that twofold honor really is respect and pay. Respect and pay. And we've seen that in the context with widows, haven't we? That word, same word honor, used to mean financial support to the widows. And so now in the same way that word honor is used here in verse 17 in this context. It's for elders who need support. So this twofold honoring, it's honor and honorarium, if you will, relates to respect and remuneration, right? Respect and pay. Chris Osum said that this called for reverence and support. We're to financially support these elders in this way. The 1689, our statement of faith, right? Our confession talks about them this way. It says, the work of pastors being constantly to attend the service of Christ in his churches, in the ministry of the word and prayer, with watching for their souls as they must give an account to him, it is incumbent upon the churches to whom they minister, not only to give them all due respect, but also to communicate to them of all their good things according to their ability. So as they may have a comfortable supply without being themselves entangled in secular affairs and may also be capable of exercising hospitality toward others. And this is required by the law of nature and by the express order of our Lord Jesus, who has ordained that they that preach the gospel should live by the gospel. So that's the way our 1689 talks about that. And so next in verse 18 then, he moves on from verse 17 and he moves into verse 18 with respect to paying your pastor, paying your elder. And Paul pulls here from two pretty good sources to support his point. One is Moses, the other is Jesus. So good sources here to make his point. In verse 18, Paul first pulls from Moses where he says, for the scripture says, and he quotes Deuteronomy here, you shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain. And that's quoting Deuteronomy 25 verse 4. Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain. Now, the Old Testament law allowed for oxen who worked to thresh the grain, allowed for oxen to eat of the grain as they worked. Okay? You didn't muzzle them, you didn't muzzle the ox and keep the ox from eating. Now Paul's point and this is pretty clear. The oxen who labored to provide physical food for the people were to be fed. But now Paul's question is, is God concerned about oxen? Yeah, not so much. And he uses this as to show that also faithful pastors laboring hard and worded doctrine are to, who provide spiritual food to the people also are to be fed. And the argument used here is an argument from the lesser to the greater. And here he uses oxen, an animal, to the greater pastors and how we're to care for the proper care and feeding of pastors. Let's take a look at where he does this. Look at 1 Corinthians chapter 9. 1 Corinthians chapter 9. Let's see his example here. We see this in place. 1 Corinthians chapter 9 in verse 3. So Paul takes an Old Testament text, right? And he applies that. He practically applies that to this current circumstance of taking care of supporting elders. So 1 Corinthians chapter 9, look at verse 3. Here Paul says, my defense to those who examine me is this. Do we have no right to eat and drink? Do we have no right to take along a believing wife as do the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord and Cephas flies right in the face of Catholic theology, right? Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working? Whoever goes to war at his own expense, who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its fruit? Or who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk of the flock? Do I say these things as a mere man or does not the law say the same also? And here it is. For it is written in the law of Moses, you shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain. Is it oxen that God is concerned about? Or does he say it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written, that he who plows should plow in hope and he who threshes in hope should be partaker of his hope. If we have sown spiritual things for you, is it a great thing if we reap your material things? If others are partakers of this right over you, are we not even more? And nevertheless, Paul goes on to say here that they didn't avail themselves of this right. Paul, and not wanting to place a stumbling block before anyone, didn't avail himself of this right. Verse 12, nevertheless, we have not used this right but endure all things, lest we hinder the gospel of Christ. Do you not know that those who minister the holy things eat of the things of the temple and those who serve at the altar partake of the offerings of the altar? Even so, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel. And so he commends this taking care of elders, taking care of pastors. He commends this support as the right thing to do in the church. Now back in 1st Timothy chapter 5, in the second half of verse 18, he also quotes the Lord in this Jesus Christ direct quote of Luke chapter 10 verse 7 where the Lord says that the laborer is worthy of his wages. And we see this example in Luke. There in Luke 10, he's speaking of the 70 that are sent out to share the gospel that are sent out evangelizing. And he tells them of the 70 that sent out, he goes, don't take a money bag with you, don't take a knapsack, don't take sandals.  And as you stay there for a period of time, remain in the house. It says eating and drinking such thing as they give because the laborer, as Christ said for the gospel, is worthy of his wages. And so in this double honor, this twofold honor of respecting an elder and paying an elder, the Lord here says that the full-time pastor is to be honored with a fair wage. As an example of this, I was talking to a pastor not long ago. Karen and I were out to dinner and a pastor was telling me a story about a time that he received a gift from someone in the church. That was a very nice thing. They wanted to respect the pastor and wanted to give him a gift. And so someone very graciously came up and gave the pastor a gift. And that's the way that this person wanted to honor their pastor. And so he gets a call shortly after that from the elder board. And the elder board wanted to know what he was given. And so he thought it was a little strange, but he told them what he was given and he noticed on the next paycheck that he received that the value of the gift was deducted from his pay. That's the way some operate. This is not talking about that. This is talking about honoring a fair wage, not an exorbitant wage. It's not talking about double pay. It's just talking about respect and pay, respect and pay. And so, yeah, there's all kinds of stories just like that. The greatest honor. I think you ask any pastor. You ask any elder, any person in position of leadership. The greatest honor that you can show your pastor is to obey the Lord. Just obey the Lord. Live for the Lord. My greatest desire for you is to give an account of you with joy. That's my greatest desire for you to see you grown up in Christ, to see you strengthen, to see you walking in the faith, to see you fervently serving God. And so the greatest honor, you think about that idea of honoring your pastor, the greatest honor that you can give your pastor is just to obey the Lord, to be zealous for him, for the Lord, not for your pastor, to be zealous for the Lord, to love the Lord, to serve the Lord, and you make it your aim such that when that pastor stands before the Lord and gives an account for you, that he does so with joy and not with grief. I want to see Christ formed in you. And so with that heart, with that intent, and take it with the spirit with which it's intended, I exhort you to obey my text. Obey the word of God. When the Lord gives you instruction from his word and take that instruction to heart, don't let it land in your ear like a rock on a hard tile, but let it land on soft, fertile soil. The soil that's receptive to the Lord, receptive to conviction from the spirit of God, turning from sin and following him and following him with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. Some of you now bear in mind to obey the Lord. You've got to take heed to what we're saying and take heed to the word of God to wake up out of slumber to do that. Wake up out of spiritual stupor to do that. Open your heart, open your mind, open your ears to the Lord in his word. Be convicted and then get out and obey the Lord in what he's telling you to do. Again, it goes back to zeal, avoiding sloth, avoiding idleness, stirring up, kindling within you that first love for Christ. And it's that first love for Christ, I was reading David Brainard last week, that first love for Christ is what will compel you to serve him with joy, will compel you to be faithful and obedient to him, that will compel you to get to work for him. And in that will put to death that coldness and that dullness and that apathy and that indifference in your heart. It is a guarantee because you have the Spirit of God, you have the word of God, and the Lord God blesses faithful laborers for him. He'll bless you in that. It's interesting here just as a footnote, but take note of this. Paul introduces both quotes here. You've got the Old Testament quote in Deuteronomy 25, you have the New Testament quote of Matthew 10 or Luke 10, and in both he refers to them equally as Scripture. I find that awesome. That is Paul here affirming that both the Old Testament text and the New Testament text, which had to have been just recently written at this time, that both were Scripture. So for those that would say that New Testament isn't Scripture, for those that question its authority or its authenticity, both here are the infallible, inerrant word of God. And you can take that to the bank. Amen. All right. So now we provided for them. We provide them double honor, pay and respect. The church next in point two on your notes has a responsibility then to protect them, to protect them. Provide for them point two is to protect them. Back in 1 Timothy chapter five, verse 19 says this, do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses. You've got to understand here with the church, the ministry is a sacred trust, a sacred entrustment, a sacred commitment. As we saw in 1 Timothy chapter three, the ministry and the work of that pastor, the work of that elder, the work of that leader in the church is dependent upon the man's character. It's dependent upon his purity. It's dependent upon his integrity. It's dependent upon how that man lives his life. And if Satan can gain a victory by attacking a pastor in this area, he can wreak havoc on a biblical church and destroy a ministry. And we see Satan, don't we, doing that all the time, finding a crack in the armor, so to speak, finding a moral failure and exploiting that to the damaging, to the scandalizing, to the reproach of God's name, of Christ's name. And Satan is at work to do that. There's no shortage of people who will make even brazen false accusations against a pastor. In doing so, they become minions of Satan. They become a device, a means of Satan. And many think they do God's service in this, but they are used by Satan to bring harm, bring damage to the church. And so in protecting the pastor from false accusations that way, you also protect the church. You protect ultimately the name of Christ before the heathen. The name of Christ might not be blasphemed because of that. But in Scripture, we see horrendous examples of that. False accusations made against Joseph. Right? If you know these stories. Made against Moses. Made against David. Made against Mordecai. Daniel. Jeremiah. Nehemiah. And most of all, Jesus Christ. False accusation, false accusation, false accusation, all with an attempt of tearing down the man of God. Here, in verse 19, Paul gives good, clear instruction now for protecting the pastorate. And thereby protecting the church, protecting the name of Christ from unsubstantiated accusations. Pastors on behalf of the church and the name of Christ need to be protected from frivolous or unsubstantiated accusers. Accusations. They need to be protected from frivolous accusations. And the key word in this section is accusation here. Accusation in the Greek here is a compound word, kata, meaning against, and agora, meaning a public place, like the marketplace. Basically what it's talking about here is a public accusation. Someone makes a frivolous, false, unsubstantiated public accusation against a pastor. Now in situations where a pastor, do pastors sin? Yes, certainly they do. Pastors sin. When a pastor sins against you, you do the same thing that you do with a brother. When that person sins against you, you go to him between you and him alone. And if you repents, you win your brother. If he doesn't repent, you take two or three witnesses with you, and here's where we get the two or three witnesses here in 1 Timothy chapter five. But you follow the steps, and in following the steps the Lord gives us in Scripture, we can protect a pastor, protect a church against a false or a frivolous accusation. But first step is to, with that person, if he sinned against you, go to him in private. Here, this is referring to that public accusation. Now if you can imagine in Ephesus, this was probably swirling around. There were leaders, Hymenas and Alexander, two examples, that have already been put out of the church, already charged with teaching false doctrine. And so the accusations were probably swirling at this time. But this kind of unsubstantiated accusation is to be rejected. To say that, to communicate to be rejected, Paul uses the words, do not receive. That there, do not receive means, don't even acknowledge it. You don't give it any consideration in your mind. You simply don't receive it. You don't acknowledge it. Two though, point two. There may be from verse 19, there may be times when the accusation against an elder is accurate and should be considered. And that, we're giving instruction there, is when it comes from two or three witnesses. You have the accuser and two or three witnesses to say, yep, I saw the pastor doing this, or this represents his character, or this is the way that he acts, or this is the sin that he's committing. And that person with two or three witnesses comes and brings the accusation, it's to be then investigated. The accusation may still be false, or maybe based on something unbiblical, or maybe based on something that's a misunderstanding. But with two or three witnesses, the accusation should be investigated. And this is based, this idea, this notion here is based on a very biblical principle, very prevalent in Scripture. Deuteronomy chapter 19, verse 15 says this. One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits. By the mouth of two or three witnesses, the matter shall be established. He went back just two chapters to Deuteronomy 17. It talks there about not receiving the accusation without two or three witnesses in a matter where it ends in execution. A man will not be executed on the basis of one witness, but he may be executed on the basis of two or three witnesses. But then in the New Testament, this Scripture quotes the very same passage in Matthew 18 we just discussed. You go to your brother, if you don't win your brother, you take two or three witnesses and you seek for his repentance. And in Matthew 18 in verse 16 it quotes this very same passage. And all of that, we're to, in point one, honor them, they're worthy of double honor. They do this hard work. But here, point two, in protecting them, even though that we're charged with protecting them from frivolous accusations, an elder here does not get a pass. We're not to protect them to the point of getting a pass. And in fact, in Matthew, or in 1 Timothy, back in 1 Timothy chapter 5, it says in verse 19, do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses. Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all that the rest also may fear. And then Paul levels of charge. I charge you therefore before God and Lord Jesus Christ and the elect angels that you observe these things without prejudice doing nothing with partiality. It means that the pastor here doesn't get a pass in these things. If he's sinned, just like anyone else, he's to be confronted in sin. But again, a pastor gets that added protection of not without two or three witnesses because it protects the name of Christ. It protects the church and it protects that pastor from a frivolous or an unfounded accusation. Calvin said it this way, as soon as any charge is made against ministers of the word, it is believed as surely and firmly as if it had already been proved. How many of you can attest to that? Someone levels an accusation. It is guilty before proven innocent in many cases, and it's just believed. Calvin, you could sell as frustrated by this. It's believed as surely and firmly as if it had already been approved. This happens, he goes on to say, not only because a higher standard of integrity is required from them, but because Satan makes most people, in fact, nearly everyone, over credulous so that without investigation, they eagerly condemn their pastor whose good name they ought to be defending. And many in this world just love scandal. They love the scandal of seeing a pastor fall. You know, many of the sins of people in normal situations would never hit the news, but a pastor who has that same sin is going to be all over the news, right? Just love scandal. And pastors are in a very visible, they're in a very precarious position. They're in the position of upholding righteousness in God's Word. And so in doing that, they are very susceptible to being torn down. They're Satan and the world to flesh the devil after the man of God to tear him down. And in doing that, they tear down the church, they make themselves feel better in their own sin, right? Today, though, many do fall, and it just makes the matter worse. You must protect yourself individually from the common fleshly response of rejoicing when you see a brother or a pastor or a leader stumble in a sin, or that fleshly response of just believing it without qualification as soon as you hear it. The first one to come and plead his case seems right, and you just take it, hook, lie, and sink, or you swallow down that scandal, you swallow down that cotton candy, so to speak, to the flesh and believe it. But here, this protection, giving in 1 Timothy chapter 5 verse 19, is to protect the pastor, protect the church, protect the name of Christ from a frivolous accusation. I've been stunned. You probably have been too. I've been stunned at how readily and how easily people throw around baseless and false accusations.  It is absolutely staggering to me. Stunned at how readily and how easily other pastors and other churches will support the slanderer in their accusation, support the slanderer in their slander. It is astounding to me, but such is the flesh, such is the weakness of our deceptive and destructive hearts. Here, there is instruction given here for how accusations against an elder are to be handled. It is up to us to be faithful to the word of God with respect to how we handle them. Just obey the scripture, obey the Bible. Remember, in scripture, to undermine authority is a very serious sin, very serious sin, and all of this undermines authority. To make a false accusation is to tread on dangerous ground. You remember the story of Korah and rebelling against Moses, undermining the authority of Moses. Remember David's heart in the cave with Saul, and he was fearful even to, and felt convicted, felt guilty over even cutting off the corner of Saul's robe. Got to tread lightly on dangerous ground when you're about to make a false accusation against a pastor, against the church, or against God's appointed person. Psalm 105 verse 15 says, don't touch my anointed ones and do my prophets no harm. Need to be careful with how we do this and follow scripture. However, that protection, although that's set up for us in verse 19, and we're to follow that in protecting, in following that, protect the pastor, protect the church, protect the name of Christ. Elders, however, do sin, and elders must be faithfully confronted in their sin. They must be. We have to do that without prejudice. We have to do that without partiality, all right? So point three on your notes in this passage, 1 Timothy chapter five, there are principles here for rebuking them, principles for rebuking them. We find that in verse 20. Verse 20, Paul says, those who are sinning, those elders who are sinning, rebuke in the presence of all that the rest also may fear. And in verse 20, he says, I charge you before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect angels that you observe these things without prejudice, doing nothing with partiality. And I would just exhort you to be faithful. You'll find, especially in this church, you'll find the brothers, the leaders here. I pray that you find me that way, Pastor Charlie that way, others. Receptive. If there's an issue, just say you can come and talk to us, you can talk to a leader, we need to be open with one another about that. You should be able to go to another brother and say, brother, I think you've sinned against me, and to talk through that. You should be able to go to a leader, brother, I think you've sinned against me. Here, those who are sinning, that word sinning there in verse 20, is present tense ongoing action. In other words, they're persisting in sin. They're not repenting of it. They're continuing their sin. Many of you in your NASB or in your ESV, it's translated continue to sin or persist in sin. And I think it's an accurate translation there of the present tense. The accusation is brought because of a continued pattern of sin. And it's brought with two or three witnesses. If it's brought with two or three witnesses, the matter needs to be investigated. Once it's been investigated and guilt has been determined, and here the elder has not repented of that, and he continues in a sinful pattern, then the elder is to be rebuked in the presence of all. Point two, principle two, and properly, excuse me, properly rebuking them is point two, they are to be rebuked publicly. Rebuk there is the word elenco in the Greek. It means to expose. Different like we talked about in the word for rebuk when it comes to an older man or an older woman. This is rebuked to expose. It carries the sense of exposing another sin with overwhelming proof of their guilt, such that they are brought to conviction. And it's interesting here that the second person singular, for you Greek guys, second person singular is used, meaning that Timothy is leading the elders in this. This accusation comes to Timothy. Timothy is charged with a responsibility leading the elders in rebuking the sinning elder. Okay. In its to be done in the presence of all, that in the presence of all, that all is not just the other elders, but before the church, their sin, in this case, is not to be covered up. This ends, this process ends with the elder being disqualified because he's an unrepentant sin. So the elder is no longer qualified for ministry. It has to be done for before the church, because the church needs to be understanding of that. They need to understand, avoid the confusion of not understanding why he's no longer in leadership over the church. So in that sense, by the time he gets to this point, that rebuked needs to be done publicly so that the people can understand why he's no longer in leadership, why he's had to step down. This is also just points to the seriousness of a sinning elder, a sinning elder who's going to continue in sin. James 3 says, let not many of you become teachers because you'll receive a stricter judgment, which is part of that stricter judgment. Gotta be careful. Here, these sinning elders, unrepentant elders, would be rebuked publicly. But principle three, there's a purpose here for why this public rebuked should be given. And it says there in verse 20 that the rest also may fear. The rest refers in the text, specifically to the other elders, but certainly applies to everyone. The rest is tied to the other elders in the Greek. But the rest also certainly applies to the body of Christ. It has the same effect. It's going to have the same effect on those other elders who want to fear the Lord and abstain from evil. But it has that impact on the body also that we should fear God and to keep ourselves from iniquity. When one person is under discipline because of sin, it should cause others to fear. That's not a slavish fear of judgment or condemnation to the Christian, but it is a healthy fear of disobeying God because we acknowledge that God hates sin, and in the Lord hating sin, we ourselves want to avoid it. And it's, think about it now, it's through that healthy fear of God coupled with a love for God, coupled with a hatred for sin, coupled with a hungering and thirsting for righteousness produced by the Spirit of God that will keep you and I from sin, that will keep us striving against sin trying to avoid it. And it's a means in the Lord by which we overcome sin. Hebrews chapter 12 verse 28 says this, Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us have grace by which we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear. It's interesting there the distinction between reverence and godly fear. Many just think that fear is just respect or just awe. There is a distinctive qualitative difference between reverence and respect and this kind of godly fear that's being taught here. It is with reverence and godly fear. In 2 Corinthians chapter 7 verse 1, the Bible says this, Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit perfecting holiness in the fear of God. There is something right and biblical about a healthy fear of God. We're to fear sinning against him. Okay, but principle four from this verse and this is difficult but it must be done. This is a responsibility that we cannot back away from verse 21 says I charge you before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect angels that you observe these things without prejudice, doing nothing with partiality. It is God and the Lord Jesus Christ whom we are accountable to and we're accountable to them first and foremost and we must not fear men in this. One commentator said this, The church that tolerates sinning elders to protect its reputation on earth will lose its reputation in heaven. That's a good way. It's before God, Jesus Christ and the elect angels all those observing from heaven. We lose our reputation in heaven if we try to seek to protect our reputation on earth by not doing here what the Bible says. The holiness of the church must be upheld. This goes against the grain of most teaching the way that most people think today. Just is counter cultural even in the church and that's because we've gotten away from what the Bible specifically says to do. Just recently many of you know the story but just recently a pastor in our area fell into adultery and in this case falling into adultery he actually stepped down from his position. Many do not do that. They're out for a week, two weeks and they're right back in the pulpit preaching, right? Disgrace the name of Christ with that sin and then they're right back preaching in the pulpit a few weeks later. This person actually stepped down but without giving any consideration to what the Bible says here is what some in the congregation were saying about him. One said she hoped that her generation could accept a talented leader who was nonetheless flawed. We should stop denying our inability to be superhuman and simply be thankful for the gifts that we can give one another in spite of our limitations. So in essence he should stay in the pulpit preaching despite that sin, okay? Another person said this, he's human. I'm human. We all fall short of the glory of God. He has shown us so much grace that I would love to return the favor. So he's disappointed that he had stepped down because of that sin. In other words he should stay on as pastor. Regardless of the world's reasoning in this, regardless of how we may feel about it, regardless of how difficult it is, regardless of the difficulty, we must obey the Bible. There's a principle. There's a principle applied for how you rebuke a sinning elder and we just have to obey the Bible in that and that is, we all know from experience, difficult thing to do sometimes. Point four on your notes. After a principle they're given in verse 2021 for rebuking an elder, there is a principle here for appointing them, a principle for appointing them. Verse 22 says this, do not lay hands on anyone hastily, nor share in other people's sins, keep yourself pure. No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for your stomach's sake and your frequent infirmities. Some men's sins are clearly evident preceding them to judgment, but those of some men follow later. Likewise the good works of some are clearly evident and those that are otherwise cannot be hidden. The principle here that we're dealing with is from verse 22, do not lay hands on anyone hastily. This idea of laying hands, we saw laying hands on Paul and Barnabas when they were commissioned for ministry. We saw hands laid upon the first deacons in Acts chapter 6 when they were to attend to the Hellenistic widows and distribution of food. We also saw the laying on of hands on Timothy, first Timothy chapter 4 when he was commissioned into the ministry. So laying on of hands here is to affirm or accept the new elder in his role, to accept him into ministry. Laying on of hands in that case conveyed support, conveyed approval. It identified with them in their new role, it set them apart for ministry. That's what laying on of hands here in this context is about. And this approval, this support, this affirming cannot be done too hastily. It's similar, if you remember going through chapter 3 with respect to deacons, it's similar to the command there in chapter 3 for deacons that we give for a time of testing that those who are tested may be approved. And that's testing done by thorough investigation. He goes on to say in verse 22, that if you do this too hastily, you share in other people's sins. And that refers there to suffering the consequences or the culpability for that hastily appointed elder's sins. When you appoint someone too hastily and they fall into sin, the church then, the body then suffers the consequences. In that sense they share and that person's sins. The body bears the effect, bears the consequences. And so in order to be faithful here in doing this, we can't lay hands too hastily. And in this, Timothy must keep himself, it says, pure. Like a supporting thought, if you will, in clarifying this principle, don't lay hands too hastily. In verse 22, Paul tells Timothy, in one sense, to stay pure. Then right after that, in verse 23, he takes sort of a side note with Timothy and tells Timothy not to drink only water, but use a little wine for his stomach's sake. Sort of in this section, a parenthesis, a little side note to Timothy. In clarifying what it means to keep yourself pure, Timothy had stomach problems related to water. But Timothy had also obviously here taken a vow of abstinence against any wine, not wanting to exercise a liberty that might cause someone else to stumble. Timothy's was committed to only drinking water. Paul here had to remind him that keeping pure didn't mean that he couldn't take care of his stomach in taking wine. Now you've got, back at that time, Plutarch, Pliny, you had the Talmud that talked about the medicinal use of wine in treating ailments that came from water pollution, stomach ailments. So here's a reference to that. In the midst of this instruction, Paul shows care and concern for Timothy in his stomach issues. A lot of times this water caused dysentery, caused all kinds of issues. And here, Timothy and staying pure could take a little wine for his stomach, all right? After verse 23 here, Paul gets right back to the principle, don't lay hands on anyone hastily. And then he gives four points with respect to what that means. Don't lay hands on an elder too hastily. And here's why. Verse 24, some men's sins are clearly evident, proceeding them to judgment, but those of some men follow later. We can't be too hasty, because although some men's sins are obvious and you can tell them right away, other men's sins, it's going to take time to discover that. It's going to take time to discover moral failures or weaknesses or issues that should keep them out of the pastorate. Some of those men, their sins follow later. So again, don't lay hands on anyone too hastily. Give time for a period of testing. Give time for a period of investigation before they are appointed as elder. Otherwise you may be appointing an unfit elder, right? But he goes on to say that was in verse 24. He says, some of those sins follow later, then he says in verse 25, likewise, the good works of some are clearly evident and those that are otherwise cannot be hidden. So demonstrating this principle, don't lay hands on anyone too hastily. You have two points related to that as it relates to sin. One, some men's sins are clearly evident. Don't appoint them. Some, you've got to give a period of time of testing and investigation because their sins will follow and it takes time to reveal that. But secondly, demonstrating this principle with respect to good works, verse 25 says, the good works of some are clearly evident. Their character, the fruit of their faith, is easy to see. And the good that they do is like a reputation that goes before them. And for these, testing may be shorter, may be clearer. But listen, don't lay hands or don't make this decision too hastily because verse 25 says those otherwise, that their good works cannot be hidden. The good works of some are not necessarily outwardly obvious. It says here that in verse 25, likewise, the good works of some are clearly evident and those that are otherwise cannot be hidden. There are many men qualified for ministry that you don't see necessarily right up front. Their good works, the genuineness of their faith, their heart for serving the Lord, isn't as obvious. And again, that time of testing, that time of approval will reveal that, all right? And it will reveal it so that that person can be approved. So here, again, we have principles for the proper care and feeding of elders, providing for them, protecting them, the principle with respect to rebuking them appropriately, and then now a principle for appointing them. Don't lay hands on anyone too hastily. Leadership in the church is important because as the Bible says, as goes the priest, as goes the people. The church will not, cannot arise above the moral failures of its leaders. So the leadership has to be carefully undertaken as an issue of appointing leaders. Caring for leaders is critically important. It's important to the health and vitality of a biblical church. So you must provide for your elders, protect them, be faithful in how you rebuke them, and follow the scripture, and be faithful in how you appoint them. If the modern church will just take those four points from scripture. We've got great instruction from chapter three. Here, great instruction from chapter five. We'll just follow those steps. We go a long way in faithfulness to the Lord, in protecting our church with not only the right character, the right quality of men who's appointed to the position, but then in caring for them while they're in the position. Does that mean that in every case that we're going to be protected from problems? No. There are some problems you can go, be as faithful as you can be and do everything that you can, and in as much as depends upon us. We do everything we can to appoint and to do this faithfully, and there may be problems. There are difficulties that come along, such as ministry and such as ministry with fallen men. Elders, leaders are fallen men, just like others are fallen men, but we have to be faithful to the Lord. And being faithful to the Lord in these things, Lord will bless our source of protection, our source of hope, our source of reliance, our source of trust is not in the men who lead us, it can't be in me, it can't be in Jimmy, it can't be in Mark, it can't be in Pastor Charlie, has to be in the Lord Jesus Christ. And if our trust and our dependence and our reliance and our faith is placed properly, and we just obey the scripture, then the Lord, knowing the Lord works all things together for our good, protects the church. And the Lord loves this church more than you and I, right? As much as we love this church. Just to be faithful to the Lord in following these and Lord will take care of us. Let's pray. Father in heaven, thank you for this passage of scripture. Again, thank you for the practical instruction that you give us in your word. It's just very clear, God, very wise. And we thank you for it. Lord, I pray we've seen so many times, Lord, that we get defensive, self-righteous, hard-hearted in our sin. We just flee from what the Bible clearly says to do. And I pray, God, that you would strengthen us as we learn your word, as we submit to your word, as we look to you in faith. You would strengthen us, Lord, to just be faithful to what the Bible says. We know that we can trust you, Lord. Although leaders are fallible, we can trust you. You are infallible. Although circumstances, God, are often beyond our control, or they're in your complete control. And so we rest in you, we trust in you, we depend on you. We ask you, Lord, humbly, God, to please continue to protect our church, protect our leadership, protect us, Lord, that we might not give the heathen, not an opportunity to blaspheme. Protect us from sin, protect our unity and peace. Protect us, Lord, in finding us faithful to simply do what the Bible says here, to obey you in these things. And in that, Lord, to enjoy your blessing, and God, to walk pleasing in your sight worthy of the calling for your glory. And in that, Lord, I pray that you would bless the labor, bless the faithfulness of your people with fruit from that. We want to see souls saved. We know, Lord, that the best, most useful tool in your hand is that sharpened, honed, clean tool that you can use, Lord, for your glory. And we pray, Lord, that we would be that. You would find us to be a faithful, pure, cleaned, honed, sharpened tool in the master's hand, faithfully laboring at the master's work for your great namesake and salvation of souls for your glory. In Jesus' name, amen.


Hi everyone, Joe for Jaspy's casebreaks.com coming at you with a pack of Tops Chrome Baseball Jumbo Edition Random team number 46 the last filler we got to do to give away the final Tops Chrome Black teams final eight teams there But first the break big thanks to this group for making it happen There are all the teams in right there Let's roll it randomize it four and a four eight times eight the hard way for names and teams four and a four eight the hard way for the teams one Eighth and final time A's down to twins All right, so there's the first half of the list right here And there's the second half of a list right over there No trade window. It's just a quick little pack break anyway It's alphabetized by a team and let's print and rip Yeah, Buccaneers, they're gonna need some kind of turnover or something here if they want to Don't want to get back into this Thanks again We're taking the risk on this filler appreciate it got some fuchsia in there somewhere And it's Carson Kelly JD Martinez hyper and a Raphael Devers Carson Kelly for Daniel and the Diamondbacks To 350 all right now let's flip back over here Let's gather everybody's names one through 30 New dice new list and Top eight we'll get teams in that order right there. Whoo This game's over All right, so let's roll it randomize it five and a five ten the hard way top eight after ten Good luck everybody one two Three four five six seven eight nine and Ten Now from nine on down it's gonna be sad time saddest of all Sean Sorry, man very close, but not quite But I appreciate everybody nine through 30 We're making this happen appreciate it Top eight you've got teams Kevin Daniel Daniel Daniel TJ Tristan Jeremy and Barry Congrats the top eight you've got teams in that tops chrome black break in this order right here We'll put those little rooftops next to your name So you know you won that team in this filler Barry with the Yankees Jeremy with the Astros Tristan with my Dodgers TJ with the Phillies Daniel Nats Guardians twins and Kevin with the fish There you go ladies and gentlemen, I'll see you in the next video for the break jazzy's case breaks calm


Welcome everybody. Good afternoon. My name is Nancy Lindborg. I'm the president here at the U.S. Institute of Peace. And I'm delighted to welcome everybody here for a very timely and a very important conversation with Ambassador Zalme Khalidzad on the prospects for peace in Afghanistan. I'd like to welcome everyone who's here with us today as well as many of you who are watching online. And I'd like to invite you to follow us on social media with at USIP and use the hashtag hashtag AFG piece. That's hashtag AFG piece. And I also encourage you to check out USIP's new podcast network at usip.org slash podcast. It will include this event along with many other programs featuring leading voices on issues of peace and conflict. USIP was founded in 1984 by the U.S. Congress as an independent nonpartisan national institute focused on preventing, mitigating and resolving violent conflict around the world. And we work globally with partners on the ground working both from the bottom up and the top down with local, regional and national actors. We have been deeply involved with Afghanistan since 2002 and we've had an office in Kabul since 2008. And with the very capable leadership of our Vice President Andrew Wilder and a wonderful Afghanistan team, the Afghanistan program works very closely with both U.S. and government partners with civil society organizations to address the underlining causes of stability and violence including improving the rule of law and elections. And we seek to connect this policy with action on the ground. Support to the Afghan peace process is a big priority for us and we've mobilized to support both Afghan and U.S. actors to seize what is a very critical moment. I think as many, many people in this room know the long running Afghanistan conflict is extremely complicated with many, many stakeholders internally and externally with conflicting interests and priorities. So inclusivity will be key and especially including women, youth and the many political factions will be vital to a sustained peace. So we're entering a pivotal time in Afghanistan's history, one that I think all of us hope could end many, many decades of war and violence. The United States themselves are war weary but they're also very nervous at losing the gains that they've realized since 2001. Ambassador Halizad's recent efforts have opened new opportunities and created opportunities for moving ahead on a peace process. On January 29th Ambassador Halizad announced that U.S. officials and the Taliban had made progress towards a draft framework of peace after days of extensive negotiations. So today is a wonderful and important opportunity to hear directly about the process, where it stands and the challenges ahead. I think Ambassador Halizad needs little introduction to most of you here in the room. He was appointed Special Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation by Secretary of State Pompeo in September 2018. He comes to this challenge with extraordinary experience in the region, knowledge of the actors and of the issues. Previously he served as the U.S. perm rep to the United Nations from 2007 to 2009 and he was also ambassador to Iraq and to Afghanistan. So he's exceptionally well qualified. We're delighted to host him for his first public remarks since becoming the Special Representative and following his remarks he'll be joined on stage by USIP Board Chair and former National Security Advisor Steve Hadley, who will moderate a conversation with Ambassador Halizad. So both the presentation and the moderated discussion will focus on the latest developments, the challenges and the opportunities in a very complicated yet very hopeful Afghan peace process. Please join me in welcoming Ambassador Halizad to the stage. Good afternoon. It's a pleasure to be here. I appreciate the help that I have received from USIP since I've taken on this new responsibility. I will ask your forgiveness for my voice today. This is what 42 hours of talking with a Taliban can do to you. I took this job a few months ago to explore the possibility of peace in Afghanistan. This was done with the aim of protecting our national security objectives in Afghanistan, particularly the threat of terrorism but also to preserve the gains that Afghanistan has made with the requirement of the US which is to reduce the burden of Afghanistan on the United States as well. The opportunity we thought was there because the Taliban were indicating that they don't see a military solution to the Afghan problem. The Afghan government declared an unconditional offer to the Taliban for peace talks. Afghan groups around the country were demanding peace from civil society, from women's group, from regional groups, and President Trump had made it clear during his campaign that he wanted to try to end the Afghan war. To explore the potential opportunity to see if a peace that can satisfy those conditions that I said at the beginning, I started engaging the various forces in Afghanistan and to deal with a complex conflict that has lasted 40 years. To see what role we can play in the service of our national interests and in the service of ending the war in Afghanistan. My overall goal is the direction of the President of the Secretary of State not to seek a withdrawal agreement but a peace agreement because a peace agreement can allow withdrawal but it is not just a withdrawal agreement that we are seeking. To achieve a peace agreement quite a number of issues have to be dealt with. We have tried to develop a long agenda of issues that must be addressed. Initially we have focused on two issues. One on the issue of counterterrorism and the other the issue of U.S. force withdrawal. After many conversations we have reached an agreement in principle with the Taliban on a framework that would provide guarantees an enforcement mechanism that no terrorist group, international terrorist group or individuals would be able to use Afghanistan the areas that they control and should they be part of a future government against the United States to mobilize and others. We will engage the Taliban further to flush out these commitments that they have made. Similarly we have agreed in principle on a framework for possible U.S. withdrawal as part of a package deal. We have a similar engagement with the Afghan government. Our hope is that once inter-Afghan dialogue begins which is our key objective that these parallel discussions will be brought together. But even if we achieve success on these two issues we make further progress a peace agreement would not be immediately or shortly or achieved in the foreseeable future without a comprehensive agreement on other issues. And as I've said publicly in my tweets before nothing is agreed to until everything has been agreed to. And the other issues that must be dealt with are issues of a roadmap for Afghanistan's political future to end the Afghan war the Afghans must sit across the table with each other and come to an agreement about their future of their country. All sides tell me that I have talked to that they have lessons from the past that previous governments that whether it was the Taliban government or others that dominated Afghanistan and imposed a unique vision by force on others have been a failure so the time has come they say for an inclusive dialogue leading to an inclusive peace. Now that will not be easy and we have offered to do what we can to be helpful if our help is needed but it's for the Afghans to decide it's for the Afghans to have the conversations with each other it's for the Afghans to accept each other and I hope what I hear from them would be actually delivered on I have been a witness to the tragedy of Afghanistan for a long time and I share the aspiration that they have to overcome the tragedy of the last 40 years and on behalf of the United States I'm going through everything I can to be helpful to them but we cannot be a substitute for decisions that they must make. We will speak loudly and clearly for the values that we have the values of human rights, value of freedom of the press women's rights, all that we stand for and we'll make sure that they understand that for having positive relations in the future with the United States those values must be respected. Those values must be responded to and I know that the Afghanistan of today is very different than the Afghanistan of 19 years ago it's a different country and it will take time for the Taliban perhaps to appreciate that but the message that they have given me is that they understand that they cannot go back we do not trust the words of any of the protagonists as such anywhere but we will do what we can to facilitate it and be helpful and be watchful. Now, Afghanistan also has complexities besides the domestic situation and the time of the elections where rather than coming together it tends to polarize them. There are lessons to be learned from other conflicts where protagonists who have refused to meet with each other have come together in a broader gathering involving the various forces that shape the future of that country. There are lessons that could be learned from that because at present the biggest challenge that we face is for the Talibs and the Afghan government the reluctance is on the side of the Talib to sit with the government to negotiate the future. I'm hopeful and I'm dedicated to do what I can in the coming period to help overcome that challenge besides me or the United States the region has a big role to play in Afghanistan. The roots of the conflict in Afghanistan is not only in Afghanistan but also in the broader region. I have said to the regional players that we seek their cooperation their participation, their facilitation to assist the Afghans to come to the peace table and to make an honorable just peace with each other. I have talked to all the neighbors of Afghanistan, perhaps the exception of one or two that you can guess, but we have not yet agreed on a formal framework for regional participation. There is a number of regional initiatives that are out there. We look forward to coming to some understanding on the shape of regional gathering that could facilitate and participate in the finalization of the peace agreement but we don't have to wait until then for regional players to play a positive role. They can already play a positive role. Similarly the timing of a peace settlement from our point of view is the sooner the better. I have said that although there is an election I know that makes the reaching a peace agreement particularly complicated, but it would be better for Afghanistan if we could get a peace agreement before the election which is scheduled in July. At the same time while we would prefer to see an agreement before July a peace agreement to bring the Taliban also into the process so that that peace agreement would facilitate a peaceful election or a framework for proceeding with regard to the future of Afghanistan, but that if there is no progress on the peace strike elections will take place and we are doing what we can to support the preparations for credible elections. Let me conclude because I look forward to the questions that Steve will ask me that we are in our early stages of a protected process to end the long suffering of the Afghan people to protect our national security interests with regard to terrorism from Afghanistan at much lower cost to contribute through peace in Afghanistan to a change in the regional equation of South Central Asia where our relations could improve with Pakistan and other neighboring states as a result of peace where Afghanistan rather being an impediment to regional integration could be a place where the region comes together that facilitates regional integration that transforms this region particularly Central Asia. But while we are hopeful that there may be a moment of opportunity and we'll give it all that we can, we have a long way to go. What we've achieved so far is significant but these are small, two or three small steps in a long journey. So thank you for coming here today. I look forward to the questions. All the best to you. I want to thank you all for being with us today. Zal, thank you for being here. Thank you for and your very informative and enlightening words and thank you for undertaking this difficult assignment. I think you are the best possible position to person to undertake this difficult task and we're thankful that you've taken it on. Well thank you Steve. I appreciate that. I want to begin with the issue of U.S. troop presence. The State of the Union address appeared to link our troop presence to the peace process. The President said as we make progress in these negotiations we will be able to reduce our troop presence and focus on counter-terrorism. That suggests in some sense process first, withdrawal later and yet at the same time your discussions have begun with the issue of the prospects for withdrawal. Can you explain why it was important to start where you did in terms of these issues of troop presence and the terrorism issue? Well thank you Steve. The reason for starting where we started has been that for us from a national security perspective although we have quite a few other interests involved in Afghanistan. That from a national security perspective terrorism and making sure that Afghanistan never again becomes a platform for terrorists to attack the United States to have a repetition of 9-11. That's why we went to Afghanistan. That we wanted to explore that whether we could have assurances, arrangements that would be assured as a result of a comprehensive peace agreement. We emphasize from our perspective that point of view. From the perspective of the Taliban a perspective or a view with regard to the troops was their most important issue. Recognizing that there are a lot of other issues that must be discussed. The reason for starting with those two were the reason that I just described. But it has been clear from the beginning that we will start there but there are other issues that must be dealt with and nothing is agreed until everything is agreed to and that now that we have made progress on those two issues and we will flush these the framework agreement that I mentioned on. Those we are going to move to the other issues. Any judgment that the agreement is only made up of those two issues would be incorrect. I think the President's point of view, this statement obviously is extremely important. It helps us gain the kind of leverage that is needed to make progress on the issues of concern to us because some in Afghanistan and particularly among the Taliban believe that they cannot leave anyway. This was a misunderstanding of the President's point of view. I think the State of the Union address has clarified that. Good. I want to press you a little bit on that because that is something that is on a lot of people's minds. You said nothing is agreed to everything is agreed but many perceive that the United States in general is weary of the Afghan project and that at some point we will leave with or without a political settlement. How do you answer that critique and what assurance can you give that we are really, as you said, in it for the peace agreement which facilitates the withdrawal, not the withdrawal and peace agreement if possible? That the President has stated clearly during the campaign that he wants to end these what he calls endless wars. I think the American people know that. I think people around the world know that. But I think the President also would like Afghanistan to not to become a threat to the United States again for it not to be a platform for terror and that he's determined to protect the U.S. national security interests regardless whether there is an agreement or if the Talibs do not agree and if they decide to go an alternative route. At this point the policy is quite clear which is that we prefer a peace agreement. The Talibs say they prefer that too. They're willing to give us the assurances on terrorism as a first step encouraging but that is, as I said, a long way to go to get to a peace agreement. So that's where we are at the present time. Let me ask you a related question. There's been a lot of discussion about ceasefire and you have talked about the issue of ceasefire and intra-Afghan discussion about peace are the next items on the agenda or certainly important items on your agenda. Clearly the United States and the Afghan governments are pressing for a ceasefire at the front end of the process. The Taliban seem to envision this happening much later. At this point what's realistic to expect given these divergent views and perspectives? Well I think that we would like both of those issues, the issue of inter-Afghan dialogue and the ceasefire to happen ASAP. For ceasefire we believe that given that the Talibs say there is no military solution and the Afghan government once is supporting peace talks and achieving an honorable peace unconditionally sitting with the Taliban without preconditions the United States also is supportive of peace then why should the killing go on? And we've said a permanent ceasefire is desirable as soon as possible. The Talibs resist this idea leaving that permanent ceasefire would take away from them the only instrument they have to get concessions from the other side. So they are saying that the ceasefire, a permanent ceasefire would reduce the incentive of the government to give them concessions and that if they do it for a while for a long time then getting their troops back into the field if there is no agreement it will be hard for them. So there are people who are thinking about permutations of that but we are still waiting to hear from them when I talk with them the last time the Talibs were saying they don't have the authorization to engage on that perhaps they will down the road but they have these concerns. On the inter-Afghan dialogue I mentioned before that this is election time and the Talib preference is not to sit with the government alone because they think that would give the government legitimacy and be favorable to the one of the candidate, the president, in his re-election campaign. And there are indications that they would be willing to sit with the government in a multi-party arrangement. We would like the inter-Afghan dialogue to start right away because many issues of concern to the Afghans to begin with but also to the rest of the world can only be dealt with in an inter-Afghan dialogue. The issues such as women's rights, the issues such as human rights, the issues such as freedom of the press, the gains that have been made are all issues that roadmap for the political future, for the future of Afghanistan would have to deal with. And the Afghan society has very changed compared to 30 years ago and it has to be an inclusive conversation with an inclusive outcome that satisfies Afghans in their entirety and the great diversity that is now Afghanistan. You mentioned the election and for those who may not know, the election is now it's a presidential election scheduled for July 20th I think. There are about 18 candidates who have registered many of the major political figures who have a stake in this peace process, some of whom went to Moscow for the dialogues with the Taliban. On the one hand, some of us have thought that the prospects of the election could be a trigger or an incentive for reaching a peace agreement prior to the election so the Taliban might be able to participate in those elections. On the other hand election periods are pretty divisive, especially when you have 18 candidates or so, all vying for an opportunity to claim the mantle of peace candidate. How do you manage these and how realistic is it to expect that the kind of complicated agreement you talked about could actually be concluded before July 20 or is there a possibility that there could be a down payment on that agreement in advance of July 20? How are you going to balance this? This is one of the most complicated issues in the complexity that's Afghanistan. I have thought myself and we have as a United States have been pressing that the peace agreement or at least the peace negotiations among Afghans, inter-Afghan dialogue should start as soon as possible. It would be very good, very positive in terms of the prospects if there could be an agreement or lots of progress toward an agreement before the election. And that agreement or the prospects progress on the agreement could affect how the Afghans decide what to do about the future. If there was a roadmap, that roadmap meaning peace agreement which has a political roadmap as a component of it, that would be dominant then, what is agreed to. And but I understand that peace processes are not a straight line, there could be setbacks and maybe there wouldn't be, perhaps I hope to avoid that, but if there is a stalemate in the peace process then you can't hold back elections in Afghanistan, so preparations for that election can go on. But I believe that if we could, and that's what I'm going to work hard to achieve, makes an agreement will be the best. And between now and July there is sufficient time, I believe, where we could reach an agreement. But at least if we have significant progress that will have a good impact with regard to the future including the elections. There are many concerns among, that have been expressed from Afghan women in civil society, that this unfolding process has to them been a little exclusive and lacking some transparency. And what would you say to those who anticipate that in some sense the casualties of a peace agreement with the Taliban might be the progress that you talked about earlier, the progress of the expanded role for women in civil society, the expansion of human and civil rights in Afghanistan. What do you say to them and how can you address that concern of these groups with the process that's unfolding? First I have to assure them that as far as the United States is concerned we hear them loud and clear. We strongly believe in our own values. We strongly believe in standing up for those values which we believe are universal values and we will advocate for them. Now as far as Afghanistan and Afghans are concerned they need to sit around the table and when I sit around the table I mean it has to be an inclusive round table and that this new diversity of Afghanistan has to be reflected and that they need to accept each other based on equality and mutual accommodation. The most important factor among all the factors is ending the violence. Afghan children should be able to go to school without fearing their moms and dads that I might not see my son or daughter again. Afghans I've interacted with them for a long time and not surprisingly they yearned for peace 40 years of war for a long time and that's the number one as I understand and together they have to find a formula to preserve the achievements of the past and if we are asked to be in the room while they talk with each other and seek our help we would be more than happy to do that to participate or others if they request to participate would participate to help them to come to an agreement where they accept each other and agree on a roadmap but also do it based on the kind of achievements of the past. The Afghans have to understand the Talibs and I've tried to explain this in my interactions with them which I said 40 plus hours but it's actually much longer because only the last meeting alone for that long is that they say they want legitimacy, they have learned from their mistakes of the past, that they want to be not isolated on, be a pariah state they say they need help, they will need economic help they will need to assistance and there are many ways to stand on their own feet to address the money problems that the areas, particularly at the Oran suffer from and that would not happen if Afghanistan went backwards rather than go forward so we have to be very, we can't trust anything that anyone says that is protagonist so we will have to have assurance guarantees but that's the way I think about it at least there was a meeting in Moscow earlier this week in which representatives or individuals from Afghanistan met with the Taliban, the Afghan government was not present and some of the statements that came that were at least reported in the press were not particularly helpful or consistent with some of the things that had been reported coming out of your talks the Taliban spokesman said that Afghanistan needed a new Islamic constitution, another spokesman said that the US withdrawal has to come first before they are willing to talk about an intra-Afghan dialogue or a ceasefire, how should we read how do you read these kinds of the stray voltage that seems to have come out of Moscow? Well if there were no differences there wouldn't be a war I mean we wouldn't have a peace process so if they all agreed on everything then we wouldn't have the problems that they have the tragedy of the last 40 years for Afghanistan has been that groups with different ideologies about what the future should be like have sought to use military power either by carrying out the coup, taking the army over and using the government powers to enforce its vision on the society and that has been the tragedy and that has led to a resistance, a rebellion armed resistance by others against that imposition by one group of its vision on the rest. Well Afghanistan needed a common vision that can have the buy in and to get from money to one as we say here is going to be a challenge but I am hopeful because I think the suffering of the last 40 years has brought with it a degree of wisdom in the leadership of various groups and I'm hopeful that they will while the pre-peace posturing in terms of emphases that different groups have there are groups in Afghanistan that would never want us to leave or at least not for the future there are groups who say we have to leave immediately and there are groups who want more kind of sharia there are groups who want even they thought there was too much sharia in this constitution if I remember we were being criticized as I had the honor of working on the current constitution in Afghanistan but yeah that's understandable that there will be different perspective the question is how do you resolve differences or understand how do you resolve it if they can do agree to do through a political process through dialogue through mutual accommodation learning the lessons of the past that would put Afghanistan on a better path and that's what this process is about so I think we're getting out of national interest about one more question and then we're going to go to the audience for questions between what time is left until 3 o'clock there are microphones on the side should you want people to come to the microphones or are you going to bring the microphones to the people great so we thinking of your questions we will have microphones will pass to you once you get a microphone please state your name any affiliation Pakistan released Mula Berater a very revered leader of the Taliban he has now been announced that he will join in some sense be your counterpart in the Doha discussions where do you think Pakistan is on this peace process issue and indeed I would say to you even where are some of the countries in the region more generally is Pakistan going to be a help here and are there others that you think have indicated so far that they're prepared to support you in this effort right well this is a sensitive question I believe Pakistan has historically not played a positive role with regard to peace process but I believe there is a positive change in recent times the release of Mula Berater which was my request they accommodated that because reputation of being more pro-peace President Karzai during his administration and President Ghani during his period mentioned that Raider would be a force for peace Pakistan has tried to facilitate talks between the Taliban and the United States and also favors inter-Afghan dialogue including between the Taliban and the government that's the that and I think that's positive we always would like Pakistan like other countries to do more but we appreciate what they have done so far and I have indicated and the Secretary Pompeo and the President that you know we want to have good relations with Pakistan better relations with Pakistan and that what they do on Afghanistan to facilitate peace and reconciliation which has been a burden on the relationship that will be removed and in Pakistan is an important country with which we want to have better relations questions we have a few sir right here Salam alaikum good afternoon thank you sir for coming here I'm Siddiq from Afghanistan working for the government I had a question in regards to the Moscow efforts on peace process do you think sir it's a compliment to your process or they are pursuing a strategy based on their terms to bring peace in Afghanistan and of course it could also make it hard for your process to actually see and get more concession so the Taliban will not easily concede if they see that there's another country a powerful country they are supporting them or they are dragging the process that was my question sir thank you very much we are distinguished member of the Ministry of Interior of Afghanistan he doesn't introduce himself properly you've been outed well do you want me to respond let's take a couple here yes ma'am my question is that you are doing all this meeting and conversation with all parties is the government involved with it and all do you get any help from them or do you explain to them what's going on or it's behind the back door and the other question is one of the agreement the Taliban that the girls can go to school what do they mean by that there's going to be madrasah again that the girls can go just study what they want because they want Islamic government we'll take one more Zalif that's alright and then you can answer those three and we'll try to do them yes sir back there I was struck in the President's speech he talked about the reduction of American troops you're talking that your discussions about withdrawal is the term reduction used do you think because there's some hope that there might be and remain a residual American force in Afghanistan as part of this deal well first on Moscow we will have to wait and see what impact it has if it leads to Afghans coming together including the government to a meeting next in Doha they've agreed then the Moscow meeting as a step in that direction would have been positive but on the other hand if it arises the Afghans further then the judgment would have to be different so at this point I'm in a wait and see mode on the Moscow meeting with regard to interactions with the Afghan government closed doors yes I do brief the Afghan government on my discussions they are also behind closed doors but I do brief them I generally tend to go to have Kabul first to tell the President and the leadership what I'm going to do on the rest of my trip and then I try to go back at the end of the consultations to Kabul to brief what it is that we have achieved I'd like the inter-Afghan dialogue to begin quickly as soon as possible that will be the best way because many issues that are really Afghan issues I'm not dealing with them I'm not discussing the future negotiating the future government of Afghanistan Afghans must agree with each other our role is going to decline the role of Afghans will increase they need to take more ownership they are better prepared I have to say then they were after 9-11 when we went there to take more responsibility and leadership themselves similarly the role of the region would increase the region needs to rise to the occasion to play a positive role because they will benefit from a peace agreement in Afghanistan in my view and the opposite will be the case in case that doesn't happen question with regard to withdrawal versus reduction well you can't have withdrawal without a reduction so I think this is we this is something we have to in the middle of the negotiations as I said some Afghans would like us never to leave some Afghans and to have a large presence some Afghans would not not like to stay there at all I have said it's our policy we're not seeking permanent basis in Afghanistan that our presence is condition based our withdrawal is condition based and our vision long term is for an Afghanistan that's entirely sovereign independent and that and if they decide that they don't want to have foreign troops we don't want to stay where we're not wanted provided and that there is no threat to our national security from Afghanistan that you know there are no terrorist threats to from Afghanistan to the United States that is a red line and I think that's a policy of the president as well let's take three more questions yes ma'am right there my name is Sita Kuhi and I'm with the School of International Services at AU my question is during the peace process or the peace negotiation or there any talks about drug issues with the Taliban what issues? Drug issues okay thank you thank you so much my name is Abdul I'm graduating student at the George Washington University I'm working with non rise to peace nonprofit organization my question is regarding Taliban commitment to prevent Afghanistan from becoming safe haven by any other transnational terrorist group so I speaking in particular like ISIS, Khorasan province branch they burned on Afghanistan on 2015 they had many attacks they claimed unfortunately that they had those attacks had massive casualties but their technology is much different than Taliban especially their attack on particular sectarian group like Shia group so being practical how much Taliban can be influential even working with Afghan government to prevent these other transnational terrorist groups thank you so much thank you did you have a question right here yes ma'am hi Amy McKinnon from foreign policy do you have any concerns about Moscow's apparent desire to self in the peace process and any role that they may play in a peace agreement Afghanistan well on drugs not yet we have and that will be part of the discussions once the inter-Afghan dialogue begins on ISIS terrorism we will not just rely on people's words there would have to be enforcement mechanism for the United States to be able to to have confidence that the commitments that are made which it's a good step that these commitments are made commitments with regard to groups that in the past those commitments have not been made I regard that as positive but words are not enough when it comes to the national security of the American people so therefore there will have to be enforcement mechanisms agreed to in which we would have confidence and with regard to Moscow Russia's role we welcome a positive Russian role that facilitates reconciliation that facilitates peace settlement that facilitates inter-Afghan dialogue I have said repeatedly to counterparts around the world that I'm not seeking to monopolize the diplomacy of peace I represent the United States that we stand for but we want a peace agreement in Afghanistan we want to see the war end we want to see the war end this year let's declare this year the year of peace in Afghanistan anyone that would like to help is welcome will give them all the credit they deserve so I am not looking at it to exclude anyone who wants to play a positive role but will thank everyone who will play a positive role and give them the credit they deserve we have enough time for three more questions if they are brief and if the answers are typically so I'll call it a brief sir thanks so much I was really hoping you would pick me my name is Afar Azam and I'm from George Mason University and for the longest time whether it's from European Union, Indian government, even the Pakistanis what I've heard that they would support an Afghan-owned process but what I'm hearing is the intra-Afghan dialect is to come where are the Afghans in this process because they should be leading it they should be starting it but I feel like this is being imposed on them thank you yes thank you so much my question is regarding about the Omen and Taliban I know it's a big challenge between Taliban and Afghan what do you think about the situation in Omen and Afghanistan because when I heard they gave Omen some limited job what do you think about future and also the second question is what do you think about the result and your hard work and when you did a hard work what do you think about the result thank you so much thank you for the opportunity my name is Nisar and I'm CEO of NGO called Global Peace One Week and my question is specifically regarding Pakistan is Pakistan compensated in any form to bring Taliban to the table I didn't understand the last part Pakistan able to bring the Taliban to the table it's not compensated for bring them to the table oh I see well first with regard to Afghan owned Afghan land we very much would like that but there is a need for a formula for the Afghan owned and Afghan process to really take place we are playing a transitional role to facilitate to the phase which we the decisive phase for peace in Afghanistan which is the Afghan sitting across from each other I'm a catalyst I see myself and others who are trying to do something to get to that because Afghans are not agreeing among themselves at this point to sit across the table and negotiate that to as to my hard work thank you for what you said I think I have a lot more work to do and the other issue with regard to women I think women have made progress in Afghanistan I'm very proud myself of the role that we have played representing the United States when I was in Afghanistan whether it was with the constitution or other steps that were taken that now we see women in all walks of life in Afghanistan you go to offices you see women a lot more education a lot more presence in the media what have you it's a different world than 18-19 years ago and they need to be built on Afghanistan still has a long way to go let's not celebrate as if we have Afghanistan women have achieved where they are the Talibs have a different view on this issue they say they made a mistake and how they dealt with women the last time but nevertheless they are not going to be the government of Afghanistan they are going to be part of the political process of Afghanistan they may be a part of power sharing arrangement in Afghanistan so it also depends not only on us pressing them but all the other Afghans who will talk with them other Afghans who will negotiate with them all the other Afghans that might join forces with them to form the government that they stand up for their values and to come to some mutual respect and mutual accommodation this is largely an Afghan issue we will play our role and we will play our role but what encourages me that there is an understanding that one side imposing its will on others by force is a formula that has led to disaster in Afghanistan and I hope that remains the case compensation for Pakistan well I have said what I said before there is no compensation other than better relations we want to have better relations with Pakistan and some of you who have known me over the years and my views on this issue you might be surprised that Pakistan is an important country we have done big things with Pakistan in the past and we would like to get into a better situation in terms of relations with Pakistan conflict and the fact of the role that Pakistan has played in terms of its relationship with the Taliban and the Kani network and others has been a burden on this relationship they say they want peace we welcome that we want them to play a positive role most of the meetings we have had with the Taliban have not been in Pakistan in many other countries and I think the message that I have here is peace in Afghanistan will help our relations with Pakistan peace in Afghanistan will help Afghanistan relations peace in Afghanistan will help regional connectivity Pakistan will be a beneficiary of that and let's seize this opportunity this moment for the region for Afghanistan especially for the obviously long suffering people of Afghanistan it's an opportunity as the United States as the leading power which has had extensive engagement now with Afghanistan to leave a good legacy behind and to have a good productive relationship with that region for the future we are out of time I want to thank you all for coming and being with us and please join me in thanking Ambassador Kalzak