Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘gifts’


Finally! This was the reason I really bought the book. I’ve been pondering on how to foster evangelism among the members of my congregation, many of whom are introverts. Our congregation could be identified as “introverted.”

This does not relieve the congregation of the responsibility to bear witness to Christ. Jesus won’t say, “Oh, it’s okay. I know you are an introvert.”

But introversion will often shape how such a person and a congregation bears witness and evangelizes.

The term “evangelism” often strikes fear in the hearts of introverts. This is frequently due to false assumptions about what it must look like. We may picture open air preaching, or going door-to-door to talk to complete strangers. We think it means engaging the person next to us on the airplane. We think it requires the mental dexterity, speed of thought (not thoughtfulness) many of us lack.

For some people it does mean those things. Most of those people are quite extroverted. We see them doing their thing on YouTube, and they write the books on evangelism that make most of wish for the 2nd Advent, now.

“Truthfully, most introverted Christians I know would be delighted to bless the evangelistic efforts of extroverts and return to their lives of solitude and contemplation with a sigh of relief.”

In Introverts in the Church, McHugh notes that introverts must be wary of falling into a private understanding of our faith. But neither should we assume that we must evangelize like Billy Graham, the local expert in Evangelism Explosion or some other gifted evangelist you know. God doesn’t want you to be them, He wants to use YOU.

Evangelism isn’t about being the best “used car salesman” and closing the deal. I know people who seem to be “closers”, but most of us aren’t. We are ordinary people trying to be faithful and trusting that God is working thru, above and beyond our meager efforts.

McHugh proposes that we be people willing to explore mystery together rather than the salesman pitching salvation to people who didn’t think they needed it. This reveals some of his more emergent leanings (based on names he dropped earlier in the book). So it is difficult to differentiate between how he thinks introverts share the gospel and his postmodern leanings at times. Particularly this one.

There is also some confirmation bias for me. His approach is more relational, which confirms much of what I’ve been thinking. Introverts generally don’t talk to strangers, but as we grow in relationship we share more of ourselves, including our faith. Our faith is not shared out of our strength, but often out of our weakness. This treasure is in jars of clay. Our weakness often reveals the connection point for the gospel. This means witnessing is less confrontational (the gospel still confronts them even as it invites them).

“Our deepening friendships with seekers involve a deepening process of intimacy and vulnerability. … The gospel paradox is that when we reveal our own weaknesses, we come in touch, and put others in touch, with the One who has the ability to heal. … We subject ourselves to the same questions we pose to others, and as we traverse them together, we may arrive at surprising conclusions we could never have reached when simply trying to defeat another’s logic.”

His understanding of evangelism ends up looking very much like spiritual direction. He notes much changed for him when he started to realize he was not initiating spiritual conversations so much as responding to how God was already at work in that person’s life. It became about “cultivating spiritual awareness.” As I ponder this, the entry points may often be the places where they are emotional (angry, glad, anxious) or depressed.

Bearing witness to Christ, his sufferings and subsequent glories (1 Peter 1) can take different forms. At times it is confrontational as a person’s double-mindedness draws forth the bluntness of the Gospel (choose you this day…). I’ve had those conversations. At some point the person must believe or not, leaving their excuses behind. But leading up to that, you can leave plenty of hints or bits and pieces rather than a packaged gospel presentation.

In my own evangelism I should remember the lessons I should have learning in my counseling training. When encountering resistance, point it out. Don’t try to plow thru it with “shock and awe”. Rather, “you seem to be putting up some walls right now. What’s going on?”, inviting them to share their fears, doubts or whatever is going on, if they want to.

McHugh notes the quote often erroneously attributed to Francis of Assissi- “preach the gospel at all times- if necessary use words.” He fully affirms the need for words. He also reminds us that our words often need to be backed up by actions that adorn the gospel and make it attractive. We love them. After all, didn’t God love us when we were ungodly, weak, enemies and sinners (Romans 5)? Isn’t the gospel that God loved us first and sent the Son as an atoning sacrifice (1 John 3)? As a result, we can and should embrace a holistic approach to evangelism. Some may call that a “social gospel” but only if the goal isn’t the gospel. Many conservatives are allergic to “justice” or “mercy” as a part of evangelism. We are showing them justice and mercy so they will have a better grasp of who God is, not making justice and mercy the gospel. Nor calling them to justice and mercy apart from Christ who is just  and One in whom the ungodly are justified.

He has told you, O man, what is good;
    and what does the Lord require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,
    and to walk humbly with your God? Micah 6

McHugh offers some more practical suggestions at the end of the chapter.

  1. Narrow your focus. Instead of trying to share the gospel with everyone you meet, develop a few relationships you already have. These are people you’ll be friends with whether or not they come to faith. But share that part of your life with them.
  2. Ask open ended questions. Don’t do it out of the blue or in a heavy handed fashion. They can be natural out-growths of your conversation or current events.
  3. Ask for time when you don’t have a good answer. It is okay if you need to research a question they ask. It shows humility, that you don’t have it all together and expect them to have it all together.
  4. Don’t accept the premise of their question. He gets this from Leo McGarry (West Wing chief of staff). This has to do with accusatory questions. Flip the question to challenge their premise. The example he gives is flipping “How can you possibly believe in a God who would condemn people to hell?” to “Perhaps the real question is how could humans rebel against a God who created such a beautiful world?” Not really the best example. Perhaps, “What do you suggest God do with wicked people?”
  5. Find a comfortable environment. You could invite them to Christianity Explored, or a Bible Study that investigates the claims of the gospel. Maybe discussion boards. Don’t debate. Explore.
  6. Know your role. You may not bring that person from darkness to light. You are, or should be, a part of a community of faith. Getting them in touch with your community is a great thing. A healthy body will contribute to the process according to each person’s gifts and strengths.

As I noted, much of this confirmed what I was thinking already. That might be helpful. I could have done without the postmodern approach at times. I’m not advocating modernism. But we can’t assume a person has a postmodern world view. Or that the best way to grasp the gospel is thru the postmodern lens. The Bible, and the gospel, transcend philosophical frameworks and actually challenge them. But that is a different discussion.

 

 

Advertisements

Read Full Post »


The next subject McHugh covers in Introverts in the Church is that of community and relationships. He notes that this is the chapter he didn’t want to write. Contrary to some people’s opinions, introverts have relationships. They participate in community. They often feel the burdens of community, pressure to engage early and often.

“I cannot escape the fact that growth inevitably involves the messiness of genuine human contact and the struggles of intimacy.”

The goal is love because God is love. The commandments hang on the frame of love: love to God and love to one another. Love requires relationships. Many of the fruit of the Spirit require relationships because they are aspects of love. For humans like us, this means relational struggles so we can learn how to forgive, be patient, long-suffering, perseverance etc.

Different cultures have different understandings of the individual and the community. In modern western culture we focus on the individual: self-identity, self-actualization, self-fulfillment. In Ancient Near East cultures, the community took precedence. The individual didn’t cease to exist, but understood himself within the context of community and the roles & responsibilities they had as a result. We misunderstand the Bible if we try to interpret it from our American individualistic point of view. Why? We misunderstand the author’s intention and original meaning since they weren’t writing to “me” so much as “us” (contemporary English obscures this by not differentiating between the 2nd person singular & plural).

This means that much of Evangelical Theology and practice has been shaped by individualism. We neglect the communal emphasis of the Bible. This is one of the presuppositions that drives many people’s understanding of baptism. The New Covenant didn’t do away with “you and your children” (see Acts 2 for instance) or a focus on the people of God. We see it with Good Shepherd having a flock, the church as the Body of Christ, and a living temple. The Bible isn’t just about you & Jesus but about you, Jesus and everyone else united to Jesus (commonly called the communion of saints in older creeds and confessions).

This means there will necessarily be a culture clash between western society and the church (if we are faithful to Scripture). We will be counter-culture to modernist individualism and post-modern communalism. We see unity and diversity in the Body of Christ!

In terms of introverts, they often belong to churches that view belonging in external ways: attendance at corporate  worship, small group etc. Those can be manifestations of belonging and maturity. But they aren’t absolute manifestations. You can attend lots of things but really not belong or really not be mature. Your reason for attending can be erroneous- social or business- rather than an expression of your union with Christ.

The converse can be true too. You can belong and/or be mature in Christ even if you aren’t there every time the doors are open. As a pastor, I confess I want measurable things to know if I’m doing my job. It can be difficult to trust God is at work in ways you cannot see.

“Too often churches ask introverts to change, rather than stretching their own understandings of participation.”

Another way churches can measure belonging is “vulnerability”. Usually that is in a particular setting, like small group. In an earlier post I noted that for introverts there is a smaller circle of people with whom they are vulnerable. We can’t expect people (introvert or extrovert) to be vulnerable in the settings we want them to be vulnerable.

I think I’m pretty vulnerable. A friend calls me “King of the Over-share” and teases me that I wear this moniker with pride. But there are things about me I don’t share with just anyone. It’s my story to tell, and I don’t tell many people. Need to know basis stuff. I should get all this. But sometimes I struggle with the vulnerability or lack thereof in our small group. I need to remind myself they won’t share their secret sins unless this group is their closest group of friends. You can’t demand it. But some churches essentially do.

Introverts share like I get into a swimming pool. One step at a time, slowly. I don’t like cold water. Introverts often gauge how you handle information to see if you are safe. If you are, they will trust you with a little more. Little by little they reveal themselves to you. If they sense danger, they will pull back.

McHugh notes the “introvert spiral”. I’ve seen this in some people, but certainly not all introverts. They spiral in and out of the community depending on whether or not they are overloaded. This dynamic is about trust and their personal limits. They move in and pull back, rather than slowly moving in. To others it may look like they are double-minded.

“Sometimes introverts need to step outside of a community for a period of time, even after years of faithful participation.”

This can also be described as a rhythm in which they engage and then retreat. Like a dance. For the more pronounced introverts “too much time in social interaction, no matter how satisfying, is disruptive and disorienting”. They need to get some space to “rediscover a sense of identity.” Every relationship includes togetherness and apartness. Each person has a different blend that works. Introverts need more apartness. Sometimes they can lose their sense of self in community and need time to regain it so they can reengage.

Like extroverts, introverts have gifts to offer. God has gifted them. How they utilize or offer those gifts will look different. They are likely to be used behind the scenes, and they won’t necessarily tell others when making small talk. Ironically, some of those gifts are born out of their self-awareness: compassion and insight, for instance. Instead of acting, they may be observing and have a better idea of what is going on.

Introverts, who like space, are more likely to give space to others. This shows up in conflict, where they don’t press in hard but give others room to think (whether they want it or not, or know how to use it). I wonder if this fits in with my distaste for micromanagement as both employee and supervisor. If I need direction I’ll ask, and expect employees to do the same. I want space to work, and give space to others to work.

Space is also given to people to talk. Since they take time to formulate thoughts, they don’t fill every opening because the other person may be formulating a thought. This means that an introvert among extroverts can feel left out since they may not leave room for him/her to think and speak.

He offers a few ways in which introverts can find their way into community easier. I’ve discovered some of them on my own. But one is to identify the influential people. This is not to gain influence for yourself, but this person will connect you to others. They network for you. It is also helpful to identify a role you can play. You have a sense of responsibility within the community which also enable interaction with others.

“While some introverts are attracted to smaller communities, others are drawn to the resources and anonymity of larger churches.”

In those larger communities, it is helpful to join a group. This regular interaction with a smaller pool of people helps build relationships. This can be a SS class, small group, ministry team etc. When working with others, talk through your process and not just your conclusions. This may feel pointless or boring (and at times it may be) but it helps others see how you arrived there and may increase buy in.

He then notes some relational challenges. Introverts are prone toward enmeshment- when your identity gets intertwined with another person. We can become overly dependent on them, or surrender our interests to theirs. Introverts can also fall prey, so to speak, to relational parasites who take and don’t give. All of the relational energy flows in one direction. Many introverts struggle to think on their feet (not so good in interviews!) which makes conflict difficult when it involves quick-thinking extroverts. Introverts are better at replaying the conflict and realizing what they should have done than actually doing it.

Most introverts need to remember that extroverts prone to speak first and think later. They regret more of what they say (introverts regret more of what they failed to say). Give them room to back up, and forgiveness when they realize what they said was hurtful.

Introverts were made for community. This is because they are made in the image of God too. How they experience and engage in community will be different. This provides challenges for both introverts and extroverts. Love doesn’t avoid these challenges but presses on despite them. Both introverts and extroverts needs to flex. It is not just one or the other. Whenever we think only one side must flex, conflict will destroy both parties.

 

Read Full Post »


Well, I’ve got a sinus headache and want to rip my head off. I can’t read anymore today. So I’ll wrap up my summary of Women in the Church edited by Kostenberger and Schreiner.

The 5th chapter is Progressive and Historic: The Hermeneutics of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 by Robert Yarbrough. Yarbrough is a NT prof at TEDS. He examines the trends in methods of interpreting this passage.

“In Paul’s understanding men and women, while equal in value and importance before the Lord, were not regarded as unisex components with swappable functions in home and church.”

Yarbrough begins by responding to William Webb’s criticism of the first edition of this chapter. He makes 3 points. First, Webb “mistakes the intent and outcome of my chapter.” His intention was not to develop a hermeneutic as Webb seems to allege. He did describe features of an approach that has been around for a long time, and criticize some aspects of newer hermeneutical approaches coming into vogue which lie behind the newer interpretations. Second, he admits that something like Webb’s “redemptive-movement hermeneutic” as been around for a long time. The particular form that Webb uses is much newer. A hermeneutic used to seemingly contradict the biblical teaching fails to be a “historic” method. Third, a “static” method, while sounding old-fashioned, may be great for a faith that prizes being steadfast and immovable. Doctrinal innovation is not something that excited Paul, Peter and John in a positive way. They were quite critical of novelties.

1 Timothy 2 is not an exception in Scripture, but we see parallels in 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Peter 3. He fails to include 1 Corinthians 11, however. We can’t just dismiss this passage as the result of patriarchy. Yarbrough rightly notes that the issue is not simply about exegesis but hermeneutics, the method used to interpret the text you have exegeted. You can’t rely on just grammar and vocabulary, but how you interpret that grammar and vocabulary to apply it matters. This is the bulk of the chapter.

He focuses on arguments tied to our culture’s progressive views of women, the meaning of Galatians 3:28 and the connection made between slavery and the role of women.

In terms of the first, our culture “stresses individual rights rather than social or institutionally mandated responsibilities in both civil and moral matters.” The stress on self-fulfillment is not limited to this particular question. The church has also taken up this ethos and makes similar arguments in discussing the role of women in the church. In larger society, the growth of women’s rights and empowerment has had some unexpected consequences. The tie between men and women has weakened and our children have suffered in a variety of ways. Freedom at the expense of the most vulnerable in our society is not a biblical value. Many studies indicate how poor off are kids are due to divorce, single parent households, missing fathers etc.

“From a Christian perspective both sexes have sinned grievously against each other in rampant divorce, the sexual infidelity that often attends it, the killing (abortion) and other victimization of children, and the ripple effects of drastic lifestyle changes.”

The conclusions that have been put forth on this text and topic since the late 1960’s are significantly different from those of the previous 1900 years. Yarbrough analyzes academic dissertations and papers so you don’t have to. These new views are a result of new hermeneutical principles. Stendahl tries to preserve biblical authority while simultaneously saying that when speaking of humans, its teaching isn’t authoritative for future times. Often the Bible is now called “culturally bound” when speaking about human relationships. In the NT, equality before God and relative inequality in society were held in tension. Today, this is unthinkable and modern man seemingly can’t make distinctions. Religion is part of what is culturally imbedded or relative, and therefore changes as culture changes.

He moves to slavery and the question of interpretation since some try to connect the two with regard to how Scripture handles the subjects. Scripture did not call for the end of slavery as practiced in the surrounding cultures (very different from race-based slavery and the man-stealing that were foundational to the African slave trade). Lacking political power in a culture in which nearly half of the people were slaves, it taught people how to live as Christians within slavery. We now know that slavery is wrong, the argument goes. In a similar fashion, they see Christianity as teaching people to live within the patriarchy of the surrounding culture but today would should espouse the egalitarianism of modern culture. Just as we (rightly) reject the Southern Reformed (and other) interpretations that tried to justify the African slave trade, we should reject interpretations that justify the submission of women. (And I’d say it depends on what you mean by that.)

Yarbrough notes that God did not institute slavery, but we see that God did institute marriage. In regulating slavery in Israel, there was a 6-year limit. Marriage was generally until death do us part. In the NT, Paul permits slaves who can gain their freedom (buying it) to do so. No such permission is given regarding marriage or church leadership.

Marriage is called to reflect the created order. This includes the sacrificial love a husband should express toward his wife (not every woman) and the submission a wife expresses to her husband (not every man). Adam and Eve were king and queen. She was not his slave or property. Redemption does not obliterate our creational and therefore gender distinctions.

“The Lord reigns; we gain nothing by mistrusting his counsel and taking matters into our own hands. But men must be careful not to hide their sinfulness behind the presumed privilege that pet verses seem to afford.”

Yarbrough notes that there are a wide range of options between patriarchy and feminism. We should be talking to one another peaceably to work these things out. This also calls for some self-examination by communities. “Is how we are practicing our beliefs providing legitimate ammunition for our detractors?” For instance, are we tolerating domestic violence in our families or do we discipline members for abusing their spouse? How we apply our doctrine matters. It either makes it attractive or downright ugly. How we apply our doctrine should be marked primarily by love, seeking the best for those under authority.

After a good night’s sleep, I feel better but want to wrap this up so we move on to What Should a Woman Do in the Church?: One Woman’s Personal Reflections by Dorothy Kelley Patterson. She is the professor of theology in women’s studies at Southwestern Theological Seminary.

Let’s analyze that for a moment. This is ONE woman’s reflections. We shouldn’t think this is the only way to apply the text. It isn’t “gospel”. She is a seminary professor, though she teaches (mostly) women (she notes she doesn’t throw out men as if she has authority over them). She has an academic background. This is an academic as well as personal issue for her (as it was for Kathy Keller).

“Nevertheless, that desire for knowledge is set within boundaries that will make a woman’s learning, and the outworking of that learning, most meaningful to her, most edifying to the kingdom, and above all most God-glorifying in the overall schema of the Father’s plan.”

She mentions that Scripture doesn’t give us a gender-based list, which my own denomination’s study committee should probably keep in mind. Or more likely those of us who vote on that report- we want lists. We want certainty. We want our list affirmed by golly. The Scripture is focused more on functions, she says, not the position you hold. The general guidelines of Scripture are applicable to every generation of women. But women live in a variety of contexts that may place other boundaries on them either legitimately or illegitimately.

Women may be gifted teachers and communicators. They should use those gifts. They are to exercise those gifts publicly (and privately) in ministry to children and less mature women. That is clear from Proverbs and Titus 2. What is clear, to me, is that they should not hold the office of elder. What is not as clear is the question of a Christian conference or mixed SS class or small group. Joni, Elizabeth Elliot and other conservative women have spoken to mixed audiences at conferences. There will be some differences of opinion on that question. Many of these options didn’t exist in the early church (no SS, no conferences).

“A wise woman would rather give up an opportunity to show and use her giftedness if by using that giftedness she would risk bringing dishonor to God’s Word and thus to him.”

She starts with first principles: creation. She affirms male headship of home and church. 1 Timothy 2 is, she admits, a hard word for women. Scripture does present us with a number of women who were gifted and used by God in various ways. They walked in obedience to Him. We don’t see them walking in disobedience and expecting God to use them greatly. We see this among many women in church history. Each woman, I agree, is responsible to use her gifts within biblical boundaries. But she is not alone to figure that out, but there is ecclesiastical authority (which may err in either direction) to help her. We need wisdom from the Spirit, as Paul prayed for in Colossians.

“The Bible gives basic principles, but it does not speak in specific detail to thousands of real-life situations and choices that come before a woman.”

We must all recognize our personal defaults in distorting the Scriptures. Some of us tend to be more restrictive, and others of us more prone to push the boundaries out. We are wise to recognize the role of our own prejudices and presuppositions in interpreting and applying the Scriptures.

There is a confusing paragraph in the middle of page 157. She’s wanting, rightfully, to encourage obedience. But ….

“Therefore, I am capable of understanding God’s revelation and of choosing how I will respond to him. I am dependent on God, but I have a choice as to how I will relate to him- whether in obedience or disobedience. If I choose obedience, I am forgiven and become his by adoption. “

Not the clearest gathering of sentences, and the order lends us to confusion.

1 Timothy 2 is not about a woman’s relative intelligence or giftedness. It is not about her cultural circumstances. It is about how God designed men and women to function in society. Men and women are equal in dignity and value. They are different and complementary to one another for the purpose of God’s mission. Access to God through Christ and our spiritual privileges are the same (Gal. 3:28). This does not eliminate additional biblical instruction on church officers. Women do share their faith with both sexes (the Samaritan woman for instance), and could prophesy (Philip the Evangelist’s daughters). So they can do more than some churches permit, but less than others permit.

Where she lands is applying the prohibitions to “the teaching of men by a woman and to a woman’s exercising authority over men.” The important thing is “in the church”. This doesn’t mean that a woman can’t teach men math, science, history, or even theology. The context is church order, not social order. This seems to be the point she keeps returning to, and the point with which I leave you.

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 »


It is easy to look over the fence, so to speak, and see how another church is better. When we are feeling smug and self-righteous we usually see how they are worse. But we can look and get discouraged.

I pastor one of 4 churches of my denomination in our city. We are the oldest, and the smallest. It is easy to look at them and go “why are we the small church?” We don’t simply want growth from people who move to town, we want to see conversion growth. Aside from our children we are not seeing much of that. Our gifted evangelist had been sick for years and died a year ago. Evangelism is a struggle for us.

It isn’t for a lack of trying, at least in some ways. In my series on John I emphasized His mission and therefore ours. I’ve done a SS class on evangelism in the past. We’ve done an outreach the last few years. But the bottom line seems to be we are generally introverted and busy people.

I want us to change, and pray for us to change. That is a good thing. I don’t want us to be disobedient to Christ.

But I also don’t want us to be filled with envy (look at those churches) or discouragement (from beating ourselves up).

Old SpurgeonEnter Spurgeon. I’m reading Morning and Evening this year. I didn’t bring it with me on vacation so I’m reading 2 days’ worth to catch up. Almost there! But I read July 18th today.

In the morning he covered Numbers 2 addressing the location of Dan in the camp. They took up the rear, but were not to be discouraged about their position in battle formation. He notes that they experienced all of the same spiritual blessings as the rest of the tribes.

They might have thought themselves useless as a result. Kinda like Grimes in Black Hawk Down whining about being the one who always makes the coffee and doesn’t go out on missions.

Spurgeon notes they had a useful place. As the “stragglers” they picked up lost property. He expands:

“Fiery spirits may dash forward over untrodden paths to learn fresh truth, and win more souls to Jesus; but some of a more conservative spirit may be well engaged in reminding the church of her ancient faith, and restoring her fainting sons.”

In other words, every church has a place in the kingdom but a different place. Some are gifted evangelistically and it shows, and some are not. But they can be a refuge for Christians who have been burned out or used up, hurt or …. introverts and doctrinally oriented folks.

Spurgeon notes that they are the rear guard, which is also a place of danger. Dan suffered attack from Amalek, for instance. All churches are vulnerable to spiritual attack, to false teaching and habitual sins.

Just because your congregation isn’t on the “cutting edge” or growing quickly doesn’t mean your church isn’t a disobedient or bad church. It may just be a different church.

In the evening he looks at Joel 2:8 and talks about balance. He mentions how the virtues should all be there- we don’t focus on one at the expense of others. But just as importantly the same is true for duties. We can not become preoccupied with one duty and neglect others. It is easy for a church that isn’t growing quickly to obsess about it and neglect their other duties.

“We must minister as the Spirit has given us ability, and not intrude upon our fellow servant’s domain.”

We tend to think of this within congregational life, which is true. We should enable all to serve according to their gifts, abilities and passions. None of us can do everything. But in the Body of Christ everything gets done.

The same is true on a larger scale, I suspect. No one church can do everything- though the bigger they are the more they can do. Smaller churches live with greater limits. This can be frustrating to members (and pastors) who see we aren’t doing something and think we should. It requires wisdom in accessing abilities, gifts and resources.

Some of us are Type-A Christians. We always want more. The answer is not to attend a Type-A church. Smaller churches do need a push, someone who calls them out of complacency. But there is a balance must be sought. We can’t help our congregations be the best they can be in light of who God has made them. And God has not given all churches the same gifts, abilities and resources. As part of a larger Body we recognize our place in the Body, the function we are to perform which means our church won’t be like other churches who have different functions to perform.

Don’t be embarrassed to be like Dan, in the rearguard. But rejoice in Christ who has made you a part of the Body and given you a role to fulfill in that Body. Seek to understand that role your congregation plays instead of trying to be a congregation you aren’t- by the providence of God.

 

Read Full Post »


Lay leaders are often very busy. They can often work long hours and have kids to raise. This can make on-going training difficult. This can be frustrating for the pastor, and the elders and other leaders. They often want to learn more but find the realities of life an obstacle.

“In any group of any size, a leader will emerge. Someone who takes initiative, assumes responsibility for the activity and direction of that group. … But in the end, I have a deep and enduring conviction that it is the gospel that should shape my attitude to and practice of leadership.”

Steve Timmis’ new book, Gospel Centered Leadership, is an answer to some of that frustration. It is a short book with short chapters on important subjects that encourage and challenged leaders new and old. He includes questions to help you think through the implications of the material. His fundamental position is that church leaders lead from an on-going faith and repentance. Apart from this, their hearts become hardened by sin and they will inevitably be unable to counsel, guide and direct the sheep.

Leadership doesn’t happen in a vacuum. It happens in the context of Jesus as the Head of the Church. Gospel centered leaders submit to His authority and recognize that they are merely under-shepherds. It also happens in the context of culture. Each culture has definite ideas about leadership. The church will usually follow that style of leadership, but should repent of unbiblical notions of leadership within that culture. For instance, Korean churches in the US often have a more autocratic style of leadership then other churches in the U.S. This is not a problem as long as they don’t “lord it over” the people.

“In simple terms, headship is all about creating an environment in which those in our care are able to flourish and thrive.”

Christ rules through His Word, and thru fallible, sinful people. Timmis notes the numerous failures of biblical leaders. They all anticipated Christ in what they did right and in their failures. We will also fail at times. The gospel enables us to receive forgiveness, get back up again and keep leading. It keeps us humble regarding our skills and abilities, and confident in God’s love and provision to us in Christ. While he recognizes that all Christians should minister to others, he does hold that the office of elder is restricted to men.

(more…)

Read Full Post »


Envy is a problem for everyone. The 10th Commandment is essentially about envy- wanting what someone else has. It is a cancer to the soul, breeding complaints against God like a whiny teenager. “If you loved me …”

Ministers are not immune. We can be tempted to envy how God is at work in other churches. At least in how we perceive it.

I had one of those experiences recently as a few fellow pastors gathered to discuss a common project. One, a church planter, noted upon being asked how their new facility is already packed. The attendance is about 50% higher than ours.

For me it turns into self-condemnation of a sort. “You stink. If you were a good pastor/preacher/leader you’d see that and more.”

Envy destroys contentment. And that is the 2nd mistake that Dave Kraft addresses in Mistakes Leaders Make.

It isn’t limited to ministry success. You can envy how much other pastors make. As a Presbyterian, I know how much new pastors in the Presbytery make. When you pastor a smaller church, that is tough. Suddenly you think about your retirement, that cruise you wish you could take and a host of other things. It can easily distract you from the task at hand.

“I think it is good to compare what is happening through me (and in me) with what could potentially happen. It is good to compare where I am with my growth and ministry effectiveness with where it is possible to be, with God’s grace. Where I get into trouble is when I compare with others who have different gifts, callings, capacities, and personalities.”

There are several important things there. First, comparing is okay if I’m wondering what God could do with me (keeping my gifts and limitations in mind). It becomes a question of faithfulness, am I being faithful? How can I be more faithful? That is a far better standard than success.

(more…)

Read Full Post »