Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘deacons’


While I was in a Presbytery meeting our denomination “dropped” the study report on Women Serving in the Ministry of the Church that is going to be presented at General Assembly this June. I’ve seen some very critical statements about this report. I wonder if we are reading the same report. I am not done reading it, but so far I’ve found it to be edifying. In light of that, let’s look at the first chapter which serves as an introduction.

The report begins by laying out their commitments and affirmations that form the presuppositions of our denomination and this study report.  This includes:

  • Confessional commitment to the complementarity of men and women.
  • The full dignity of men AND women as created in God’s image.
  • The Scriptures teach that eldership is comprised of qualified men (they embrace this “humbly and happily”).
  • Marriage should display mutually-edifying complementarity.
  • Male headship is to be expressed in sacrificial love to his wife.
  • It is expressed when a wife “welcomes her husband’s headship with respect”.

This means they are laying out the boundaries, biblical and confessional, that exist for our denomination and this study. The purpose is not to examine things outside of the boundary markers, or to change the boundary markers. The purpose is to examine questions that lie within these boundaries. Within these boundaries there are some differences of opinions. Another way of saying this (as I’ve said before) is that complementarianism is not a monolithic movement. There are a continuum of views that exist within the bounds of biblical and confessional complementarianism. These are the differences in view. The goal was not to ordain women elders as some have asserted (and have intentionally or unintentionally stirred up fear).

At least half of the adult membership of the church are women. How they can serve, and how we can empower them, are important questions to ask if we actually want to see them serve God to the fullest as God permits.

They note that in BCO 9-7, both men and women may be appointed by the Session to assist the diaconate in their work. There are elders in the PCA who think that the PCA should permit women to be deacons. Some others favor an office of deaconness which supports the diaconate particularly in its ministry to women. Some see this as a position, not a church office. Others have an unordained diaconate so women may be deacons. So, recognizing these big differences in opinion we ought to consider the question more carefully.

“The committee is not recommending any Book of Church Order changes.” page 2, line 44

Historically they note that the PCA was formed during a time in which the women’s rights movement was popular, and many denominations, including the PC (US), were beginning to ordain women to the office of elder (including teaching elders). The PCA affirmed complementarianism then and still does now. However, “members and ministers are asking how to equip, encourage, and utilize women in the church’s ministry in ways that are consistent with our confessional and theological commitments to complementarianism.” This, I think, is a worthwhile project.

I recently saw some of the Overtures that have been made to the upcoming General Assembly. One is Overture 3 from Westminster Presbytery which calls for the dismissal of the study committee. The report responds to this overture recommending that GA answer it in the negative. It deals point by point with the objections (except that it has reported disturbed the peace in Westminster Presbytery which was vague- are they fighting among themselves or just in existential agony because we’re considering how women may serve within the boundaries of our biblical and confessional commitments?).

One idea put forth by the Overture is that it is improper for women to serve on voting committees since this might involve “having authority over men.” I’m confused. Don’t women vote in congregational meetings? While we don’t recognize it as a court, congregational meetings function like a court and decisions are made by vote, like whether or not to call a particular man as teaching elder. Additionally, as the Study Report notes, committees made recommendations that must be voted on by the Assembly. It has no authority, the authority lies with the Assembly to approve or deny the report  and its recommendations.

To summarize: this report is addressing questions within our denominational boundaries, and not trying to make us PC(USA)-lite. This study committee was properly called, and women may serve on such a committee.

May God use this process to further the purity, peace and prosperity of the Church (and churches) through this process.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »


Someone recently sent me a link to R.C. Sproul’s lesson on The Role of Women in the Church. She had only a little info about the PCA study committee and was concerned. I allayed some fears, but since this is probably one of the few older Sproul lessons I haven’t heard I decided to listen to it with the officers of our congregation at a combined meeting.

This is so old that Bill Hybels made a guest appearance. I believe the context is that R.C. was asked to talk to a group of people at Willow Creek. In the intervening years, it would be safe to say that they have probably changed their position on this subject.

Here is something of a summary from the notes that I took.

Protest movements have real pain behind them at their roots despite their sometimes illegitimate actions. The Feminist movement is no different. It is a response to patronizing attitudes and exploitation. Women have not been treated well by men in society, and in the church.

On the other hand, the church has not missed the truth about women and ministry for 2,000 years. The question of who may be ordained is either determined by God, or my subjective evaluation of who is gifted to serve. The qualifications, particularly with regard to character, either matter or they don’t.

R.C. alluded to when he was in the United Presbyterian Church. The largely egalitarian denomination permitted men to hold the complementarian position. This changed after an ecclesiastical court case and officers like R.C. were told to change their views, leave for another denomination or face disciplinary action.

R.C. noted that he wrote a minority report for the PCA favoring the ordination of women. This requires some explanation, obviously. He has no prejudice against women. He wants to be as liberal on this question as the Scriptures allow him to be. In this context he mentioned a debate at Gordon-Conwell (or perhaps he said Gordon College where he taught for a time) years earlier when he was the only faculty member willing to take up the complementarian position. For him, the question always traces back to 1 Timothy 2.

11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

This passage, he believes and I concur, does not allow women in positions of authority in the church. Some kind of teaching and some kind of authority are prohibited. He noted there were different kinds of “authority”. There can the authority of expertise or influence. The type in question is judicial or governing authority.

Judicial authority is the right to command and demand the actions of others. Paul restricts judicial authority over men in the church. The context is ecclesiastical, so this is limited by that context. Women may have authority in the workplace or school and other contexts. He rejects patriarchy.

There is also the general vs. technical sense of teaching. He believes this refers to teaching with ecclesiastical authority.

The general term for office is diaconos- service. Church office is an office of service. We do not lord it over others like the Gentiles do.

Women are not allowed to sit in judicial power- to be on the session or an elder.

The PCA ties government to ministry in what he thinks is an unbiblical way. This is why he generally supports women deacons, but doesn’t in the PCA. The BOCO indicates that though an office of service, it has power or authority (though not a court so it is fairly confusing and one of those things I’d love to see clarified in the BOCO). Sproul thinks that preaching does not necessarily have governmental authority because the court is not in session during preaching. At this point R.C. and Bill discussed Elizabeth Elliot who refused to preach at Willow Creek on a Sunday morning. Bill invited her to come during the week. R.C. had her “speak” a few times at Ligonier c0nferences (that is not a local church and does not have an ecclesiastical governing body).

Our officers commented that perhaps this means a woman could be an assistant pastor since they don’t serve on the Session. But they do serve in the courts of presbytery and General Assembly so don’t take the joke seriously.

R.C. noted that he sometimes worries that his position is too liberal (and some PCA pastors would agree). But he needs to be faithful to the text, which is opponent in the aforementioned debate agreed supports the complementarian position. P.K. Jewett agreed that the complementarian interpretation of the text was correct. As a result, Jewett denied the authority of the text in his defense of women’s ordination.

Different denominations have different working definitions of ordination. All it means is to be consecrated to an purpose or office. Scripture nowhere explicitly says women are not to be ordained. We have to talk about the particular office in question, and build an implicit argument regarding ordination in general.

He main principle was that the parameter are to be those set forth in Scripture, not culture or the “light of nature.”

Read Full Post »


At this year’s General Assembly they decided to have a study committee on women in the church. This was met with mixed reviews. Some were glad. I was glad, but I will not impute the reason for my joy to others. I want to better understand the Scriptures, in particular one text of Scripture, and for our church life to be more fully conformed to those Scriptures. In other words, I believe that notion of Reformed and reforming.

Some were upset seeing this as a move toward liberalism. They believe they fully understand the Scriptures and haven’t imported any erroneous cultural notions into our understanding of the Scriptures.

I don’t see this as the on ramp to women elders. This is especially true when I look at the people on the study committee. We’re talking Ligon Duncan and Susan Hunt for Pete’s sake.

Our Session decided we wanted to study this subject for ourselves so we can better evaluate any majority and minority reports. In fact, our men’s ministry has decided to look at this too. So I’ve done some shopping to add to the books I own and have read on this subject. One of the books I added was Jesus, Justice, & Gender Roles by Kathy Keller. Kathy is also on this study committee and this was a book I wanted to read anyway.

In addition to being the wife of Tim Keller, Kathy has an MA in Theological Studies from Gordon-Conwell and spent some time as an editor for Great Commission Publications.

To call this a book is generous. It is more like a booklet, being 39 pages (plus a few pages of end notes). This increases the likelihood of it being read by my very busy elders. It also means that it won’t cover everything I might want it to cover or as in depth as I might want it covered.

Let’s lay the card on the table first. She is a complementarian. This is a broad term, and there are a few differences of opinion within this movement. Many want to claim their version as the only version. This, in fact, is one of the reasons for this book. She tries to nail down the essential point of complementarianism.

She divides the book into two chapters. The first focuses on hermeneutical issues and two key texts. The second focuses on how this plays out as she feels pressure from both egalitarians and more “conservative” complementarians (or those who may actually hold to a view of patriarchialism).

She begins by describing how she arrived at these conclusions (and to hold to the inspiration, infallibility and authority of the Scriptures) though she didn’t grow up believing them and they threatened her career ambitions. Hermeneutically she affirms that the analogy of Scripture (clear texts interpret unclear texts) and each text has a context (historical, cultural, social, and I might add theological) that affects its meaning. The two texts she focuses on are 1 Corinthians 14:33b-38 and 1 Timothy 2:11-12. In some ways she views the first as less clear and the second as more clear such that 1 Timothy helps us understand 1 Corinthians.

We cannot isolate 1 Corinthians 14 from the rest of 1 Corinthians. This means that we cannot use it to mean that women must be absolutely silent in a worship service. For instance, 1 Corinthians 11:5 mentions women praying and prophesying in the public worship service. While we might claim the prayer is silent, clearly the prophesying is not. As a result she notes “Paul in 1 Corinthians is not condemning the public ministry of women, but regulating it.” In other words, public exercise of spiritual gifts is to retain “divinely ordained gender roles.”

She does mention Miriam, Deborah and Huldah as women leaders. She, unfortunately, just mentions this in passing. Since these women are used by egalitarians like Sarah Sumner to justify their views, I think this bore more attention. Miriam, for instance, while publicly leading, was publicly leading women in the chorus of the song.

In its context, she understands (quite reasonably) this text to be about the elders evaluating and judging the content of prophecy in the worship service. They were discussing it and speaking authoritatively upon it. Women were not to be interjecting and disrupting this process which involved only the elders. This happened prior to the completion of the canon and the elders were to guard the deposit of truth they had (and were still receiving). We do this less formally now that the canon is complete by holding pastors to confessional standards. If I begin to preach deviant views, the elders are charged with admonishing me, and presbytery will be involved if I persist.

These view is supported by what we find in 1 Timothy 2. Debate has raged over whether “teach or have authority” (NIV), “teach or exercise authority” (ESV),  refers to two separate functions or one function (teaching in a position of authority). She, following James Hurley (who used to teach at RTS Jackson), Craig Blomberg and Philip Payne believes this is a hendiadys in which the conjunction connects the two verbs so they are mutually defining.

“So what is being forbidden to women in 1 Timothy 2 (and by extension in 1 Corinthians 14) is authoritative teaching- some kind of teaching that carried with it an authority not found in other, allowable forms of oral discourse.”

In her understanding there are times when a teacher doesn’t have authority. You can disagree with a SS teacher or small group leader but it isn’t a problem. The problem is if we disagree with the elders on an important issue (it may be prompted by the disagreement with the SS teacher). The SS teacher can’t excommunicate you, but the Session can!

The main tenant of complementarianism is male headship in the church (and home). In the church it is male elders (there is disagreement on the question of deacons which means we have disagreements on the nature of a deacon or “ordination” behind the scenes).

Keller than briefly mentions the common reasons why people think we don’t have to obey these instructions by Paul: misogyny by Paul, only binding on the church then, and outdated commands. She notes how unconventional Paul was in his relationships with women and how the charge of misogyny really doesn’t have any legs. The second charge is based on a fallacy since every part of Scripture is written to a specific group at a specific time for a specific reason. We do distinguish between descriptive and prescriptive passages however. Scripture describes polygamous marriages, for instance, but never prescribes or affirms them. This second excuse also denies Paul’s instruction about Scripture in 2 Timothy 3. The third excuse essentially is that we have more light now. Another version of this would be the trajectory hermeneutic of some progressives like Rob Bell where we try to project what Paul might think & say today.

“Consider the enormous hubris in appointing our present cultural moment as the yardstick against which God’s Word must be measured.”

We should not give into the impulse to fall back onto “love” since the issue is so “complicated and confusing.” She reminds us that the great creeds and confessions of the church were the produces of (often) vigorous debate. It is better to dig deeper into the Scriptures and submit ourselves to what they say. This is not simply a personal project but a community project (regarding both time and space).

“I have found it fruitless, leading only to self-pity and anger in my own life, to question God’s disposition of things when I do not understand. Confidence in his goodness has been a better choice.”

The second section is really about trying to address those who disagree with her, both the women who are egalitarian and the men who are more patriarchical (my term) or those who have a more restrictive view of women in the church. She distinguishes between gifts and roles. We tend to conflate them. A woman can have a shepherding gift and she can exercise it, but not in the role of pastor. She brings up her now deceased professor Elizabeth Elliot in discussing this. We should want women to fully exercise their gifts even as we recognize that there is a role (or two?) they cannot fulfill. She puts forward a common formulation that a woman can do anything an unordained man do.

This is a SHORT book, as I mentioned. As a result there are a number of things I thought went unaddressed. I would have preferred some discussion about deacons. That was beyond her scope and is really not an egalitarian vs. complementarian question.

She does affirm the voluntary submission of the Son as Mediator in the economic Trinity. In the footnote in that paragraph she clearly denies Eternal Submission of the Son, which is proposed by some complementarians or at least seems to be. She rightly calls this, in my opinion, a heresy. Some people, like Wayne Grudem, keep doubling down on their ESS views (which are also found in the ESV Study Bible). Frame’s comments are quite tentative on this issue.

Anyway, this was a helpful booklet to read even though its scope was limited. Reading this I see no reason for my more “conservative” brothers (I am a conservative, by the way) to fear the PCA sliding into liberalism with Kathy’s inclusion on the study committee.

Read Full Post »


Christians often have a very confused relationship with money. Many seek financial help due to indebtedness. Many more should.

All Christians, however, should clarify their relationship with money in a proactive rather than reactive way. PCA elder and community bank CEO Joe Kesler has given us a book for that very purpose in Smart Money with Purpose: Liberating the Goodness of Money in Your Life. His book is for a broader audience instead of positioned for those struggling with debt. As a result, he helps all of us think through the many issues surrounding our relationship with money. It is set up with discussion questions at the end of each chapter  to help you process not just the information but also your life.

Kesler starts with the goodness of wealth, from God’s perspective. It is common for Christians to focus on the negative side of money. The Scriptures don’t condemn money, or wealth, but the love of money. Many of the significant figures of the Bible were rich, and enriched by God. It is God who gives us the power to create wealth (Deut. 8). One iof the benefits of the Reformation was setting the church free from the idolatry of poverty, calling people to spend and create wealth which helped spawn the industrial revolution which significantly increased the standard of living for the western world.

“The human heart without grace will create havoc in any environment. The heart transformed by grace can, on the other hand, bring healing to either type of institution.”

In his second chapter he addresses the Deceitfulness of Money. It makes a good tool, but not a good master. Money as a source of security is a deceitful idol. Our greed and envy of others’ wealth is common fodder for politicians. Wealth is a product of many possibly factors. Not all who have accumulated wealth did it by exploitation or cheating. Acting like it can get you votes though. The answer the Kesler offers is that of stewardship- recognizing that God is in charge and gives us resources to take care of to accomplish His purposes and not just our own.

“Personally, I would much rather have some income inequality, but access to all the services that have been created by tremendous wealth creation, than a situation where we are all equally in misery. But the real point is not political, but spiritual. Envy of others’ wealth may feel good for a time, but in the end it rots the bones.”

The third chapter is pivotal: Putting the Power of Purpose in Your Financial Plan. He argues for gaining an understanding of God’s purpose for your life to drive your financial decisions. What you think you should be doing now and in the future should determine what you do with your money in the present. There is no one answer for this question. It is a question that many financial advisers ignore, or twist into a selfish purpose. As I read this I realized that most of a married couple’s fights about money and time are really a fight about mission. They either have no sense of mission to guide them, or they have conflicting missions that have not been reconciled or aligned. He provides some practical advice for career change and transitions.

He then moves toward the heart in focusing on your history with money. We all have a standard operating procedure with regard to money that has been shaped by our personal histories. He references Brent Kessel’s 8 financial archetypes, and sends you to take a quiz to identify which fits you. This does not mean you are stuck there. He provides the positives of most archetypes, as well as the weaknesses that should be addressed.

He then seeks to increase our money awareness: how much money flows through our lives and how to utilize that knowledge to make better financial decisions. From there he moves to the BIG financial decisions that take up most of the money that flows through our lives: homes, children, cars. Many couples don’t think about these decisions in light of God’s mission for them and the flow of money in their lives. They often receive counsel from those who benefit from their decisions: real estate agents, financial advisers etc.

He then talks about building wealth which starts with debt. Some debt is good, or productive, because it is an investment in the future and our mission. Some debt is regrettable or unwise. This is largely, but not exclusively, consumer debt. It may make us feel better, in the short run, but eventually we see that we have squandered money we could have used better because it is not productive. Some debt is immoral. Borrowing from the Old Testament he notes that we should not charge the poor interest so they can survive. Interest free loans to have a business is a good thing for the poor. Loans for rent don’t really help anyone get ahead. He helps us to understand the types of debt so we can evaluate past decisions, make changes and make better future decisions.

He then moves into investing, providing 9 habits for successful investing. What makes for successful investing for you may not make for successful investing for me. This is because our goals, experience, strengths etc are different. There is therefore, not one investment plan but these “habits” help us build a plan to invest.

It is not about just debt and investing. Giving matters in the present and the future. He notes the three kinds of tithes from the Old Testament which should guide how we think about giving. One of them is for celebrating God’s goodness to us. Some of their giving was spent on a party- think Thanksgiving on steroids. We should celebrate God’s goodness to us. This “tithe” can be used for parties, vacations, treating others etc. The second was the tithe for the poor. It was 10% every 3rd year. God gives us money that should be used to care for the poor. We should give to our deacons’ funds at church, local ministries to the poor, sponsoring orphanages or children in under-developed countries etc. There is also the Levitical tithe which provided for the Levites, priests and the worship of the people. The OT instructs us on the type of giving that should find a place in our lives.

The last chapter is on passing on an inheritance. He expands that to a spiritual inheritance. But he provides some helpful advice in thinking through the questions surrounding this issue.

Kesler’s book is a very helpful book filled with wisdom for a variety of people. It would be a valuable tool for any deacon’s toolbox as he comes alongside members with financial issues. It would be helpful for financial advisers to provide a more holistic approach to helping customers. I think it is good enough to get copies for all our church officers.

Read Full Post »


In a recent Session meeting, one of the elders asked a particular question that related to the issue of men and women in the church. It was a question about which people have differing opinions, even if they are in general agreement regarding the larger issue.

I sent him some exegetical and historical work I’d done on the pertinent texts in years past. I also sent him links to a few books on the topic. One was a book I had not seen before, and decided to read for myself. That was Kevin DeYoung’s Freedom and Boundaries: A Pastoral Primer on the Role of Women in the Church.  I was particularly interested because DeYoung serves in the RCA, a denomination in which many egalitarians have found a home. He is a complementarian, so I wondered how he handled this particular issue.

He wrote the book (published in 2006) for congregations similar to his own which did not have “official” positions on the subject. He wanted the book to be understandable for lay people. He wanted to display an irenic spirit. The goal was not to bash those who disagree with him. He did not want to descend into vitriol or presenting strawman arguments (how a view is presented would not be recognizable to those who hold the view).

I believe he succeeded in both cases.

Much of the book is taken up with looking at the passages at the heart of this discussion (Genesis 1-3; 1 Corinthians 11; 1 Corinthians 14; 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Timothy 3. He also handles some common objections as well as briefly outlining the many things he believes women can do in the church. In the appendices he includes his sermon on Ephesians 5 and the similarity in arguments for those espousing egalitarianism and the acceptance of homosexual behavior in the church.

“Controversy, because it makes us think more carefully and support our ideas more substantially, can actually strengthen the church.”

He begins with a series of questions to “set the stage” for the larger discussion. He affirms that this is not a “salvation” issue (I disagreed with one of my favorite professors in this issue, and have friends with whom I disagree). It is a question for the well-being of the church. As such, we should investigate it.

(more…)

Read Full Post »


The wrong pipe broke.  It was just one of those things you could not predict nor prevent.

The ceiling vomited on the kitchen.

Last week Tucson experienced some record-breaking cold.  I had a flashback to last winter in Winter Haven.  I was still at Ace and plumbing and irrigation parts were flying out faster than pizzas on Super Bowl day.  We had run out of heaters, and the supply in the entire SE was depleted.

So, as a result of the cold many people here had pipes freeze.  Some of those broke.  The cold also affected the natural gas supply.  So thousands in Tucson were without water, heat or both.  Here at the church we took precautions to prevent the pipes outside from freezing.  All was well when I left Thursday night (except my sermon that is).  I had Friday off.  Usually my administrative assistant is in on Fridays, but she had car trouble was planned on getting in on Saturday.

(more…)

Read Full Post »


I’ve finished reading When Helping Hurts: How to Alleviate Poverty Without Hurting the Poor and Yourself.  It was a very challenging read.  I previously mentioned the foundational concepts they covered, including the differences between relief, rehabilitation and development.  We hurt the poor, and ourselves, when we neglect these differences and act the wrong way.  The 2nd section covers General Principles for Helping Without Hurting.  The 3rd covers Practical Strategies.  The book is not just theoretical, but tries to provide some helpful ways to think about missions, both local and international, and community development.

The second section helps you to identify the needs of the poor, and emphasize their assets.  The latter is often neglected, which furthers the paternalism that ends up continuing and even worsening their poverty.  Paternalism takes many forms: resources, spiritually, knowledge, labor and managerial.  Pride is very subtle, and finds many ways to exalt ourselves above others.  We mistakenly believe that since we have more material resources we are somehow better than them in all ways.  We forget the providence of God in the distribution of resources/abilities.  I say this, not to keep people in poverty, but to humble many of us that we realize the advantages we do enjoy are not earned or deserved.  We benefit from where we are born, the family, community and culture into which we are born and all that it entails.

One chapter focuses on how not understanding the culture, not listening to the people, can result of wasting resources.  They tell of a group that built a home for a pastor in Africa.  They designed the home without input from the pastor.  He tried to inform them that in his culture, bathrooms are in the back.  But they refused to listen and continued to build the home with it in the middle of the home.  This was a huge culture faux paux that would lead to great shame if he lived in the house.  Their efforts were wasted because they did not listen.

It isn’t just mission teams.  The U.S. government, in an early attempt to provide low income homes, built identical homes.  The plan called for carpets and clothes washers in the kitchen.  Most of the people worked in jobs that left lots of dirt on clothes and shoes.  Linoleum would have been much easier for them to keep clean than carpet.  Their old washers overflowed in the kitchens.  So much didn’t make since for those people.  But they thought they knew better (and things really haven’t changed).

My small group and local leaders

The chapter on short-term missions was very challenging.  It prompted me to think about my experiences in Mexico.  Thankfully, I can see that we were led by people who submitted to local leaders.  But many don’t.  As the church I pastor now considers some trips, we will need to ask some important questions.  One of those is whether or not that is the best way to use the resources.  Sometimes it is better to provide the funds to them to enhance their work.

In that chapter they mentioned the problem of our notion of “equality”.

“A STM team will tend to assume that treating every individual in the community the same way is obviously the right thing to do and may give out, say, food, in equal amounts to everyone.  But some collectivist societies have found that giving a disproportionately large amount of food to particular individuals can increase the chances of financial success for those individuals, who will then share their earnings with the community as a whole.”

I could not help think about our own nation’s quest for equality of resources via income redistribution.  Some people are better stewards of resources, and expand the wealth of the community.  They provide jobs for others.  Taking money away from them doesn’t really create jobs.  Our misguided notions of “fairness” will impoverish more and more.  It is telling that after 40+ years of the “war on poverty”, the poverty rate in America is essentially the same.  Whole lot of good that has done, and at what cost?

Locally the focus tends to be on relief.  It sells, plain and simple.  And it tends to impoverish people spiritually and emotionally.  They provide some examples of people who have implemented programs to rehabilitate or develop communities and individuals.  This is more nuts and bolts than the earlier theoretical section.  It can be of great assistance to deacons and parachurch ministries.

This was an easy book to read.  They  include questions for small groups to answer to process the information and consider how to implement it in their communities.  It gets 2 thumbs up from the Cavman.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »