Let the Women Teach

I am not a feminist in the modern use of the word but I reserve consistent views in the traditional pursuit for the equality of women. There is no doubt that we live in a man’s world but the west is quickly changing our perceptions on what is acceptable as far as women’s rights are concerned.

Mockingjay-coin-katnissConsider the strong & authoritative roles being depicted as women on the recent stage of teen sci-fi: Chancellor Ava Paige in the Maze Runner Trilogy; Katniss & President Coin in The Hunger Games Saga; and the 3 leaders depicted in the Divergent novels, Beatrice, Jeanine and Evelyn. If those are too unfamiliar, consider the depiction of women in series like Bones, Castle and others: Dr Saroyan in Bones as the head of the forensic division; Victoria Bates in Castle as Captain of the 12th Precinct. We are subtly or perhaps not so subtly, being taught about the equality of women.

Coming to the discussion as a reformed evangelical, I believe what most reformed evangelicals would teach; that is, that the role of pastor and elder is reserved for men. In our society, where we feel an overwhelming pressure for equality, we like to explain that these positions are not a matter of equality but of calling and function. The man functioning as pastor is not ‘better’ than the women functioning as Sunday school teacher; they are equally performing their respective roles. Just as the pen and paper cannot do the others job they work best performing the part that they were designed to play.

But this post is not purposed to persuade you on the above matters. However, if you are persuaded I am glad. This post is primarily presented to those who already believe this model for gender participation; to those who teach it and affirm it strongly, not only negatively by prohibition (“I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man.” 1 Timothy 2:12), but also positively affirming the many excellent and note-worthy tasks that women are called to (“Teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live… to teach what is good.  Then they can urge the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.” Titus 2:3-5). If this is what you teach at your church then please read on.

Rekindle FB Blog - women teach (1)Why, for the love of honour and integrity, do you ask men to speak at a women’s event/bible study? If these men are such excellent teachers then by all means, ask them to preach on Sunday so all can benefit. Why, in the only context for a woman to teach an expository, well-reasoned, adult-appropriate message, do you invite a man? You cannot continue to positively affirm the teaching role of women to other women without actually allowing it to happen. Do you believe women to be so weak, naive and emotionally unstable that they are incapable of teaching other women adequately? Or do you have such little confidence in them since they have not been discipled or fed enough meat? Let the women teach.

And why, for the love of Christ’s exposure of the excessive Pharisaic laws, do you create ‘laws’ in your churches about what could possibly, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered teaching/holding authority. If a woman should stand up at the beginning of a service, welcome the congregation and pray, and be perceived by a handful as authoritative, will you make a rule to protect the more important rule? And if a woman should say anything ‘spiritual’ when leading the church in song and be perceived by a handful as authoritative, will you make a rule to protect the more important rule? And if a woman should write anything pertaining to the Word, and be perceived by the reader as authoritative, will you make a rule and stop reading?

Perhaps I have gone too far. Please don’t misunderstand my point. I simply long to see a women’s spiritual contribution taken seriously in the church. If you affirm that women are equal to men (“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Galatians 3:28) and that women are given tremendous gifts from God to be used for the edification of the body (“To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.” 1 Corinthians 12:7), then please do not win our favour in theory only to disregard these principles in practice. The point is not to permit all things for women but to take decisive action on what you already affirm. Women should not be pushing that all can equally use their gifts in the church; it is the leadership role of godly men. That is your mandate. Please play your role well, so that we can play ours.

For more on women in ministry, click here to read ‘The Workings out of Women’s Work’.

Beware the Love of Missions

Walking away from churchLast month I wrote an article challenging the increasingly popular statement, ‘I identify as a Christian but not a churchgoer.’ Numerous reasons are given for that sentiment, with people claiming: ‘The church hurt me,’ ‘Most Christians are too judgmental,’ and ‘I don’t need the church to have a relationship with God.’ In my article I argued that such a view of the Christian life – regardless of your reasoning – is disobedience to Jesus and discordant with the gospel. Theologian Millard Erickson wrote, “Christianity is a corporate matter, and the Christian life can be fully realized only in relationship to others.” The Christian life is inseparable from and unsustainable without Christian community. In this short post my challenge is not directed at to those with an anaemic understanding of the local church but an ungodly attitude towards it, which is hidden behind the pious veil of a love for missionaries.

In my previous post I made the point – Paul’s from Ephesians 2 – that as we are brought to Christ we are inevitably joined to other believers, becoming mutually committed to one other’s faith and spiritual maturity. The decision to withdraw from the local church is therefore the decision to withhold my God-given gifts from other Christians. Obviously, you can still be a part of the local church and contribute nothing to the lives of others; one of the ways to do this, without losing face, is to express a passion for missions. It is after all much easier to love those who are far away, in word (and rarely in deed). You might even pray for missionaries, give financially to their organisations, and insist that the local church remembers those in the field – all worthy efforts – yet overlook the Christians right in front of you.

Please do not hear what I am not saying. The local church must zealously support the work of missionaries; as John Piper says, Christians can either send or go but they cannot be indifferent to missions. That means our churches must be committed to training and sending missionaries (and church planters) or continually giving towards mission. However, I agree with Mark Dever, in What is a Healthy Church?, when he says it is impossible for us to love the church universal without first loving the church local and visible. He writes this, “If your goal is to love all Christians, let me suggest working toward it by first committing to a concrete group of real Christians with all their foibles and follies. Commit to them through thick and thin for eighty years. Then come back and we’ll talk about your progress in loving all Christians everywhere.”

Old people in churchWhat prompted me to write this post was the confusing paradox I have witnessed in some Christians: apathy to the point of spiritual abandonment of the local church alongside a fervency for the missionaries supported by our local church. How can this be? One of the answers is, in my opinion: in practice it takes less effort and personal investment to be committed to the work of missionaries than working in the local church. I fear that some (definitely not all) who pour themselves out for missions might in fact use that as a smokescreen for their unwillingness to get into the trenches. After all, a passion for missions is admirable and desirable, not to mention desperately lacking in most local churches. Therefore we must gratefully receive those with a concern for missionaries, but not if their love of missions is not coupled with a commitment to the life of the local church.

Dever writes, quite probingly, ”Committing to a local body…confirms what Christ has done. If you have no interest in actually committing yourself to an actual [local church], you might question whether you belong to the body of Christ at all.” Though typically sensational, Dever makes a challenging point as we conclude. Jesus insisted on perceptible and palpable love amongst his disciples, calling us to imitate his selfless and self-giving love (John 13:34; 14:15; 15:12), by which the world will know we are his disciples (13:35). Surely such love must begin at the local church.

Can I be a Christian but not a Churchgoer?

Old empty churchI recently read an article by a Christian blogger, Wendy van Eyck, explaining why she identifies as a Christian but not a churchgoer. This is not the first time I have encountered this statement and others like it. Despite the linked author’s voiced anxieties over insensitive responses, I felt I had to write this post as more and more Christians are viewing the local church as an optional extra for the Christian life. I fear for Christians belonging to the subculture that self-labels itself ‘post-church’ and I believe that this shift reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the gospel and God’s purposes in the world today. The church is a display of God’s wisdom (Ephesians 3:10), to bring him glory (3:21), but this is only accomplished when people are united by the gospel and their pursuit of a mature faith. So in this post I will offer a few caveats, interacting with the linked post, before arguing that Christians must belong to a local body, for their own Christian walk and the health of the church.

A few caveats

Wendy writes, “Jesus is still the most dear and precious thing in my life.” This is a wonderful assertion, and all Christians should resolve to adore Jesus and consider him more valuable than anything we possess or desire. Unfortunately, while the author professes that Jesus is most dear to her, I think she has failed to recognise what is most dear to Jesus, namely, the church he bought with his own blood (Acts 20:28). Wendy also writes “Jesus plus nothing is the only math I need.” This too is a delightful, if not a little misleading, statement. Tullian Tchividjian recently wrote Jesus + Nothing = Everything, picking up Paul’s mantle in Galatians to remind us that Christ’s work is sufficient for salvation. But I would like to point out another sum in Paul’s writing: the blood of Christ has brought those who were far off near and in the gospel God has made two into one (Ephesians 2:13-14). Towards the close of her article, Wendy writes, “I just want you to feel free to live in such a way that daily you find yourself being pulled into an embrace by God, that you find yourself so close to him surgeons would have a hard time cutting you apart.” Once again, the picture painted is evocative, a great thing to pray for others – indeed, Christ has set us free (Galatians 5:1) – “Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another” (5:13), “As we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, especially those who are of the household of God” (6:10). It is a grave mistakes to detach individual salvation from God’s work in the world, reducing it to something private and unrelated to God’s people. And I hope to convince you of that below.

1. God saves us to belong to a local church

Agape feastPeter writes, in 1 Peter 2:4-5, ‘As we come to Christ we are built together as living stones into a spiritual house,’ with the language of priesthood (2:5, 9) being implicit of ministering to each other. Mark Dever, who has written extensively on the church, argues this point convincingly in What is a Healthy Church?, “Never does the New Testament conceive of the Christian existing on a prolonged basis outside the fellowship of the church.” Dever adds, drawing on Ephesians 2:11-22, that being committed to a local body is the most natural outcome of being a Christian because it confirms what Christ has done. I would add that committing to the lives of other Christians is also indicative of how Christ has treated us. Dever claims, with even more force, that in respecting the New Testament it is impossible to answer the question, ‘What is a Christian?’ without ending up in a conversation about the church. The pattern reflected in Scripture is of God drawing people to himself and in doing so establishing new and unlooked for relationships amongst his people. This result is not arbitrary, but purposed by God so that we will minister to each other and receive the ministry of others. Without other Christians in your life, many whom who would not have chosen, but God has, you will bury the gifts (or “talents”, Matthew 25:28) that God has given you and cut yourself off from the abundant blessings of belonging to a local church.

2. Christians need the church

In his short, must read, The Prodigal God, Timothy Keller writes, “Many people who are spiritually searching have had bad experiences with churches. So they want nothing further to do with them. They are interested in a relationship with God, but not if they have to be part of an organization.” He admits that churches can be unpleasant – indeed essential to his work is the critique of judgmental, inhospitable, and self-righteous Christians, or “elder brothers” – but Keller firmly states, “There is no way you will be able to grow spiritually apart from a deep involvement in a community of other believers. You can’t live the Christian life without a band of Christian friends, without a family of believers in which you find a place…Only if you are part of a community of believers seeking to resemble, serve, and love Jesus will you ever get to know him and grow into his likeness.” Not only is the Christian life incomplete without the community of a local church, it is also dangerously lacking in accountability, loving correction, and challenging aspects of our faith raised by those who are different to us. I am sure that Gentile Christians were tempted to quit the predominantly Jewish churches of the 1st century, yet Paul wrote, ‘You are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, a holy temple’ (Ephesians 2:19-21). Whichever analogy from the New Testament you favour regarding the church – from body to family to building – God unequivocally states that we are joined together as local churches, and that our growth and faith will be stunted outside of the church.

3. The church needs Christians

CCUOne of the grey tops in my church recently said to me, ‘If everyone came forward with their gifts in local church we would have all we need.’ Now, you may partly disagree with that wise saint, and I am not sure the church will be fully functioning and healthy this side of heaven, but her point is worth considering. In Ephesians 4:11-12, we read that God gifts the local church with speaking and teaching offices so that the whole church is equipped for ministry, to serve each other. When I decide that I can no longer be part of a local church for fear of not fitting in or further hurt I make the conscious decision to withhold my gifts, ministry and service from other Christians; basically, I am putting my comfort ahead of others. This seems contrary to the mind of Christ (Philippians 2:5). Commenting on both the Pauline epistles and Hebrews (see 3:12-15; 10:24-25), David Peterson writes in Engaging God, “There is an emphasis on gathering for the benefit of the believing community…The giving and receiving of exhortation is undoubtedly a key factor…of the Christian assembly.” He goes on to argue the obvious: we cannot forsake the local gathering of believers, as many professing Christians do. Christians exist for the benefit of other Christians and the growth of the local church. Peterson then concludes, “Christians ought to gather together regularly to give in ministry, and not simply to receive.” Those cruising as comfortable passengers within the church along with those who have already jumped ship need to be reminded that the church needs them and their service if it is to make headway.

Conclusion

Presbyterian pastor, Philip Ryken asks in The Church, “How could anyone be ambivalent about the church? Its sin notwithstanding, and in spite of all the people we find hard to love, the church is the holy people of God.” Surely there is nothing more important for us to give ourselves in service of, even in suffering for, than the church that Christ purchased with his own blood. Our decision to belong to a local church cannot be dependant on what it does for us and how safe we feel, rather we should model our lives on Christ who made himself nothing and became a servant (Philippians 2:6-8). Self-preservation over the wellbeing of the local church is not how Jesus lived, in fact the cross demonstrates the polar opposite, therefore it is not something I imagine he would endorse.

Can Satan Grow the Church?

If Facebook has taught us anything it is that sensational titles are of paramount importance to being successful online. And I guess if this post were a video the title would run something like this: The Church Grew More Rapidly Than Ever Before, But You Will Not Believe How! “Can Satan grow the church?” The answer is a chilling, “Yes.”

Matthew 13In Matthew 13 we encounter a collection of what have been called Jesus’ ‘kingdom parables’, where our Lord warns his hearers that Satan would actively strive against the church. But notice one of the ways Jesus said he would do this, in the “parable of the weeds of the field” (13:36); Satan’s opposition is not ostentatious but insidious. In the parable, the enemy does not destroy the fields but sows weeds amongst the wheat (13:25). And these grow so closely intertwined with the wheat that the field owner tells his servants they cannot be separated, until harvest time. This parable can be understood to teach us a few things: the church visible is not the church invisible; on judgment day Jesus will vindicate his people whilst judging mere pew-warmers; and God is not deceived by Satan but fully aware of his designs. However, the point I hope to tease out in this short post, one which I do not think is regularly taught, is that Satan grows local churches. One of the ways that Satan deceives us is by growing the local church.

What got me thinking along this line was our recent series of posts on Jesus’ temptation, in Matthew 4. Reflecting on the temptations I had to conclude that they were not simply mock or pretend temptations. What we see in the verbal wrestling in the wilderness is Satan genuinely tempting Jesus with the spectacular rather than sacrificial service. While the episode legitimises Jesus’ steadfast obedience to his Father and self-giving love for those he came to rescue, it also presents us with a peculiar puzzle: how could worshiping being he created truly tempt Jesus? David Seccombe argues that Satan’s offer of dominion – through means other than the cross, resurrection, and ascension – was real, “[Jesus] saw just how easy it would be to win the kingdoms if he were to employ the armoury of evil tactics which have been used from time immemorial to achieve political power” (The King of God’s Kingdom, p132). Satan could give the Son what was deservedly his: all glory and honour and power. But due to the deceptive nature of that fallen creature, Jesus saw the relative hollowness of the offer in comparison to what the Father promised.

William BlakeTying the above together I want to address pastors, from all traditions, denominations and walks. Our adversary, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour (1 Peter 5:8). And one of the ways that he can do this is through giving pastors what they rightfully desire: vibrant, impressive churches. If Satan can grow the local church then we should be wary of loading our confidence into the size of our congregations. Sam Storms, in To the One Who Conquers, warns against pointing to sizeable offerings and overflowing crowds as an indicative of divine approval, for the field may simply be full of weeds. Writing on Jesus’ letter to the Philadelphians (Revelation 3:9), Storms adds: “The greatness of a church is not measured by its membership roll or budgetary prowess, but by the size of its Savior, whom it faithfully honors and passionately praises and confidently trusts.” It sounds trite, but it is true. Satan is the surreptitious prince of this world, sowing weeds and causing us to look in awe at the size of churches. But we must remember, from Jesus’ encounter, that he can give what we know to be good and desirable, only through devious means or by deception. Pastors need to be aware of the temptation to adopt alternate means, as Jesus was, in achieving growth in the local church. As Paul reminds us in 1 Corinthians 3, our work will one day be measured, only that which is built on the foundation of Jesus Christ will last.

Let me conclude. From Matthew 13 we see that Satan can grow the church; indeed, it is one of the ways that he deceives believers. Therefore we must be cautious about seeing the size of our congregation as an undeniable mark of God’s blessing or presence. I know of very large churches where Satan’s promises, not God’s as he has revealed them in Scripture, are preached; I have also visited many seemingly insignificant but faithful local churches that I am sure God is pleased with. In Matthew 4 Satan tempted Jesus with a right and desirous end, but the means were idolatrous. For us today, especially those in ministry, the difficult line to walk is between desiring growth in the local church while keeping that desire from becoming an idol. Our enemy revels in a church where attendance is the mark of faith and its leaders worship growth.

Some Dangers of Theological Study

Theological studyI applied myself more than usual, and had an article posted at IX Marks challenging pastors who have a low evaluation of theological study and highlighting the importance of systematic theology for Bible teaching and local church ministry. In this post I want to briefly touch on some dangers inherent to theological study, both at college and in local church. My reason for doing this is balance: I may not undervalue theology, but could find myself at the other pole, where theology is self-indulgent and fails to serve God’s people. Another reason for writing this post is because, as Helmut Thielicke notes in A Little Exercise for Young Theologians, love and truth are seldom combined when it comes to academic learning. And this cannot be the case for those who are called to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15).

In an old post reviewing my recent reads, I joked that I could be accused of loving books more than people, and I fear the same could sometimes be said about my enjoyment of theological inquiry. Though I do not share his sentiments, Dr Manhattan, from The Watchmen, unwittingly expresses the dangerous lure of theology, “I am tired of Earth, these people. I’m tired of being caught in the tangle of their lives,” only instead of an ivory tower he retreats to Mars. Theology is an enriching pursuit, which should be undertaken by every Christian, but we must be aware of the ease with which it can become an escape. I cannot deny the pleasure of sitting down with a cup of freshly brewed tea and Herman Bavink’s Reformed Dogmatics, but I can work hard at directing my studies to equip me to better teach and train other Christians. As former Archbishop Michael Ramsey wrote, in The Christian Priest Today, the church’s hold on the faith is dependant on its ministers’ ability to develop their own theology. Christian theology should never be disconnected from life, for it is the means of understanding it.

Theology cannot become a pursuit in itself. In his essay Learning in War-time, C. S. Lewis quotes from the Theologica Germanica, where the anonymous author warns against becoming lovers of knowledge – or our knowing – above the thing (we might add person) known. There are two problems with this; both are incongruent with Christian theology. Firstly, developed and deep studies can puff up, causing pride. There is a tendency amongst the learned to become condescending. This is a travesty, since true theology cannot but create humility as we reflect on our creatureliness, God’s glorious holiness, and gospel of unmerited grace. Secondly, theology can become idolatry if we love our knowing more than what is known, our Lord and God. As Lewis says, the intellectual life is not the only pathway to God, it is a treacherous path beset with dangers to carefully consider. What does it profit a theologian if she authors numerous works, earns a tenured professorship, and is awarded more PhDs than he can fit on her office walls, if she loses her soul?

Dr ManhattanAbove, I mentioned Thielicke’s unassuming but profound book. One of my lecturers at college encouraged us to read and reflect on it annually, and I am grateful for his counsel. In fact, I am tempted to say the book is worth owning for Martin Marty’s introduction alone. In it, he makes a few painfully incisive points about studying theology. He challenges the alienating piety of those who claim to know more than any reasonable finitude allows, and calls out the abstraction and aloofness that characterises many theologians and their relationship with the local church. But, in my opinion, his best point is on the odium theologicum, “The pettiness of little men who care much about big issues.” As I conclude, let us remember that theological study is when little creatures claim to understand an infinite God, let alone big issues. We can barely afford pettiness, must learn humility, and are failing if our knowledge does not move us to worship God and serve his people.

Doodle: Driscoll, Perilous Negativism, and the Apostle Paul

Mark DriscollReading through 1 and 2 Timothy recently, it interested me that Paul does not instruct his deputy to adopt a purely combative approach to the false teachers who had crept into the church. Timothy is undoubtedly charged to refute and rebuke those opposed to the truth of Christ. But along with this negative treatment of heresy, he is called to the more positive avenue of modelling Christian life and doctrine; and it seems that there is also prudence in passivity. Notwithstanding the need for correction and a defence of the apostolic gospel, at points in the letter, Paul encourages Timothy to simply get on with his task of teaching true doctrine and modelling godliness.

Timothy is warned about becoming enwrapped with the myths, genealogies and speculative theology that was bandied by the local heretics (1 Timothy 4:7; 2 Timothy 2:16). Challenging the false teachers was a necessary role Timothy would have to undertake yet it would not excuse him becoming quarrelsome and drawn to controversy (1 Timothy 6:3-5; 2 Timothy 2:23-24). The aim of his charge was rather this: “love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith” (1 Timothy 1:5). It has never been easier than it is in the digital age to voice disapproval and vitriolic disagreement. So we must genuinely consider these warnings from Paul: becoming drawn to quarrels; and issuing correction from presumptuous certainty rather than loving sincerity.

It is with the above in mind that I want to address the current maelstrom that has engulfed Mark Driscoll. Countless posts have been thrown together and dispatched to the four corners of the Internet; the smug glee of many is ostentatiously worn all over their digital profiles; and every other Christian blogger feels the need to remind us that they saw the signs, of the end of the age. But why are we so captivated by his tragic fall? Why do we feel the need to retweet every scrap of evidence and interview decrying Driscoll? What might excuse our fascination with this bright career that seems to be speedily approaching a catastrophic crash? As Paul told Timothy, we need to be aware of an unhealthy fixation on controversy; the need to highlight Driscoll’s numerous (and now well catalogued) shortcomings; and the uncontained pleasure that has some dancing on the ashes.

D. A. CarsonListen to the unsettling words of D. A. Carson, in Exegetical Fallacies: “Persistent negativism is spiritually perilous. The person who makes it his life’s ambition to discover all the things that are wrong…is exposing himself to spiritual destruction.” He goes on to say that persistent negativism will first uproot gratitude towards God, as well as trust in his sovereign protection and purpose for the bad things that happen, and then it will supplant humility with conceit, “As the critic, deeply knowledgeable about faults and fallacies (especially those of others!), comes to feel superior to those whom he criticises. Spiritual one-upmanship is not a Christian virtue.”