And people are sinners.

So those who are ministering to others will at times find themselves knee deep in messy situations. Unfortunately, these situations often involve criminal behaviour which has never been reported to the civil authorities. Probably the most common instances are child abuse (physical, emotional, sexual, or neglect) and domestic/family violence.

As the Roman Catholic Church amply illustrates, religion finds it tempting to handle these situations in-house. Next to the Roman Catholic Church and unaffiliated cults, probably no Christian religious group is more notorious for these practices than Fundamentalism. If you doubt that statement, spend some time at the Freedom From Abuse Network¹ or just spend a few minutes exploring google on the topic.

To be honest, we should all blush with shame that these things even need to be said. But they definitely, very much need to be said.

Yes, in Australian Fundamentalism.

Reasons

So here are 16 reasons why crime should not be handled in-house.

1) It is a criminal offence in some jurisdictions to fail to report even suspicion of abuse of minors.²

2) It leaves the victims of crime exposed to danger instead of protecting them.

3) It thwarts the civil government’s ability to do their God-given job.

4) It creates a moral bubble in which the civil law does not apply.

5) It puts church leaders in a position of power in areas where God has not given them authority.

6) It protects criminals.

7) It creates an environment of fear of civil authorities.

8) It leads to resentment on the part of the victims.

9) It develops people who believe they are above the law.

10) It harms the testimony of Christ when it finally comes out in later years as a scandal.

11) It creates an environment of secrets.

12) It fails to effectively bring crimes to a stop.

13) It usurps God-ordained civil authority.

14) It treats crime as an offence against the victim instead of what it is, a crime against the state and society.

15) It damages people.

16) It fails to recognise that authority is delegated by God and is limited in scope.

Brothers, we need to do right in this matter. Every single time.

If you’re not sure what to do in a particular situation, I encourage you to pick up your phone and contact a legal professional, your state’s child protection agency, or your local police. Typically, they will be happy to answer your questions and clarify your obligations. I also encourage you to keep detailed notes about each action you take in a way that will be preserved until you die.

Open your mouth, judge righteously,
Defend the rights of the poor and needy.
………………………….—Proverbs 31:9

Grace to you.

¹I do not endorse the FFAN carte blanche. I do support the cause of justice and mercy and am thankful for anyone who labours for these.
²See the National Child Protection Clearinghouse for a helpful outline of reporting obligations in Australia.

Loud protests notwithstanding, people need enemies. It is fundamental to modern politics. The left has the right. The right has the left. The people have the politicians. And the politicians have the people. We all have enemies. And we have them because we need them.

Every sports team has its opponents. Every nation has foes. Every city has its critics. Every ideology has its counter. Every thesis has its antithesis.

When we go for a relaxing fish, we make ourselves the enemy our prey. When we play a game, we make ourselves the enemy of the opponent. It is as natural as can be. And it is so because God made it so.

The greatest leader has his critics. The most irenic monk hates and is hated. The peacenik hippie is often found protesting. And if all else fails, you’ll find in fundamentalism an enemy for the most inclusive of pluralists.

The great leaders of history knew this. They united their peoples by giving them a common enemy. They kept the attention and focus of the people on these common enemies so that the people would not turn on each other and on them.

And it is no different in the local church. People will have enemies.

These may be internal enemies—the elders, the deacons, other church members—or the attention may be directed externally. Common external enemies might be other churches within the same denomination or movement. Or perhaps, in more moderate circles the enemies might be churches, denominations, and movements outside of their circles. Many a church is consumed by this sort of enmity with others Evangelical churches. Or our focus may be shifted to other religions. This apologetic emphasis can easily turn non-Christians into the common enemy.

May I suggest that the true enemy of the local church is threefold and familiar. The true enemies of the local church and of every single believer are the world, the flesh, and the Devil. And even among these, many err in over-emphasising the two which are easiest to emphasise: the world and the Devil.

The horrible truth is that of these three true enemies of the church and the believer, the one that is most insidious and hardest to fight is us.

If your church is made up of people, they will have enemies. Your challenge as a leader is to direct the combative energies of your people, not internally within the church, and not merely externally toward the plethora of potential enemies, but inward, to the resident evil in our own hearts.

¹⁸For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. ¹⁹For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. ²⁰Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.

                                                                                 —Romans 7

May we keep our focus on the real enemies, and may we fight them courageously with a sincere heart.

Grace to you.

I wish we did not have to talk about this. However, in the last 5 years, I have fellowshiped with resurging evangelicals who find their identity in their reformed interpretation.  This movement has become increasingly vocal and marginalising. I refuse to support or be part of a church or movement which makes either a reformed or non-reformed position a dividing plank of their platform. Allow me to share with you 3 reasons why I will not join the neo-reformed crusade.

1. Jesus was not ‘reformed’

A leading reformed church planter recently preached and tweeted “I am a Calvinist just like Jesus and the Apostle Paul”.** For me, this brings back bad memories of the ‘Jesus was a Baptist’ movement. Well, to be accurate, Jesus lived 1500 years before Calvin. Christians followed Jesus before reformed theology was even invented. In my experience, some of the adoration of Calvin seems akin to mormonism – to the point where Jesus and Paul are interpreted through the golden lenses of Calvin’s institutes. Or to put it another way, the logic is similar to the 1611 KJV re-inspiration theory. (i.e. full understanding was not complete until around 1500-1600). If reformed theology is Biblical, then it should be able to be fully defended and justified from Scripture without the need for Calvin.

2. Neo-Reformed is different to Historical Reformed.

The Reformation was a necessary response to middle ages Roman Catholic Church doctrine and practice. Started by Martin Luther in Germany, subsequent European leaders (including John Calvin) moulded the reformation movement to their political and theological understandings. The Reformation was a precursor to great spiritual awakenings. Today, Roman Catholic doctrine no longer has the same political/spiritual monopoly over the western masses. However the neo-reformed movement is resurging by creating a new enemy – psycho-Christianity. I am certainly not defending the bad doctrine of some ‘feel-good TV preachers’, but let’s be clear – this is not the same beast as the historical reformation.

3. The ‘Reformed Label’ is used as an egalitarian weapon

“They are not reformed” has been used as code for ‘Christians who are not in our clique and are probably heretical’. Rather than deal with the doctrines of foreknowledge, election and predestination, this slur plays the man and not the ball. In practice, modern use of the reformed label seems to be creating an exclusive new form of fundamentalism. As someone who emerged from fundamentalism, I find the personal attacks, the pride, and the lack of love particularly repulsive. For that reason alone, I choose not to be known by the reformed label. Godly evangelicals don’t need to constantly tell people how reformed they are – and how non-reformed you are. Having said that, Ben Kwok recently posted about biases he has witness from non-reformed Christians. So problem behaviours can cut both ways.

Reformed theology use to be known by the TULIP acronym. Today, the reformed label has evolved in some circles to mean different things depending on who is using it. So it is hard to pin down.   TULIP is helpful in that it explains some soteriological truth regarding God’s sovereignty, however it does not give the complete love picture of salvation that only the Scriptures can bring.   So for the sake of dealing with the issues, let me expand on TULIP’s points.

• T – Total Depravity of man:   The heart of man is inherently evil.  Salvation requires the intervening of the Holy Spirit to move us from spiritual death to spiritual life. - Ephesians 1   YET, while unregenerate man is depraved, he still retains the image of God with the free will to choose to do right (e.g. obey government by paying taxes).   In comparison to God, these acts of righteousness are still filthy rags.
• U – Unconditional election: Election to salvation requires repentance.   God provides the command and the power to repent both mentally (saving faith) and physically (visible faith).    YET, the command to repent does not negate our free-will actions to choose to ‘seek first God’s Kingdom’.  Our acts of faith are not works that earns us favour or standing with God but we choose them as a response because He first loved us.
• L – Limited Atonement:    Atonement is only applied to the elect.   YET, God died and shed his blood for the sins of the whole world. The price is paid for everyone.  That is why God can honestly say that He wants everyone to be saved.
• I – Irresistible Grace:   For those of us who ave received God’s grace, we understand why grace seems so irresistible.   YET the Bible is full of stories of people who resisted the grace that God offered to them (e.g. the rich young ruler, Pharoah, etc)
• P – Preservation of the Saints:  God gives man the power to repent (John 1:12) and the power to stay following Christ.  YET Christians don’t become preserved toy puppets.   Rather God gives His followers the power to persevere.   There is no earned merit in a Christian’s faithfulness, and some will chose to walk away from the faith (this is not hypothetical).  In His eternal foreknowledge, this is not a surprise to God. – Hebrews 6:4-6

If you meet an ugly calvinist or ugly non-calvinist, resist the temptation to throw the baby out with the bath water. God does foreknow and pre-destine his elect. (Romans 8:29) He also created man with a free will. Let’s conclude that the ugly person is just not expressing it well.

As I said before, the truth often lies in the middle of man-made debates and positions. I do not consider myself a follower of John Calvin or Joseph Aminius. I am simply a follower of The Way. So the next time, someone asks if you are reformed – don’t buy into the artificial game. Simply smile and say that you follow Jesus.

Blessings

-JC

*EDIT – My responses to TULIP were updated on Jan 16th to provide more clarity.  My position on TULIP remains the same.

** I have been told this was originally preached jest.   Here is a link to the sermon.     However, the comment was subsequently tweet by the Geneva Push and retweeted by other, hence I remain concerned. 

 Toxic leaders.  The topic frequently pops up in both secular and religious news.  Undeniably, toxic leaders even flourish within fundamental churches and organizations.  Kenneth Gangel’s book, Surviving Toxic Leaders, answers two main questions: what does toxicity look like and how should people under toxic leaders respond effectively. The author was uniquely qualified to contribute to this discussion.  His obituary (2009) states, “Dr. Gangel was one of the most influential Christian educators of the 20th century; a leader of leaders; and a champion of the Christian family. Kenn authored or edited 57 books and lectured in more than 40 educational institutions worldwide.”  His educational credentials also include three master’s level seminary degrees and an earned PhD in educational administration.  His resume marches through administrative posts in many institutions including Dallas Theological Seminary and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.  All this to say that the author of this book is familiar with leadership issues within Christianity and within his own heart.  He knows what he is talking about.

Surviving Toxic Leaders is somewhat of a Christian angle on Jean Lipman-Blumen’s explosive book, The Allure of Toxic Leaders: Why We Follow Destructive Bosses and Corrupt Politicians—and How We Can Survive Them (2005).  Gangel refers frequently to this book throughout the pages, and perhaps his book is best understood by those who have read Lipman-Blumen’s work.  Not having read Lipman-Blumen’s work myself, however, I still found Gangel’s book helpful.  At 91 pages it is an easy weekend read although I found the style a bit choppy.  The number of real life stories and outside quotes certify both the widespread poison of toxic leadership and our need for real answers.

The bulk of the book discusses nine characteristics of toxicity.  His inclusion of dishonesty, inordinate ambition, cruelty, bullying, and autocratic behaviour as toxic behaviours were no surprise.  These are flaws that anyone would consider toxic to an organisation.  However, Gangel also holds leaders accountable for less aggressive or manipulative leadership failings: incompetence, laziness, ignorance, and the pitfalls of fame.  While cruel words and bullying tactics leave wounds for all to see, a reckless, know-it-all Christian leader seeps toxicity throughout the organisation by his failure to be a humble and teachable team player.  The book employs not only true examples but also biblical stories to flesh out the concepts that Kenn is trying to describe.  He makes it clear that even though a leader may not be intentionally toxic, the effect on those he leads is just as devastating as if he had premeditated every cruel tactic.

The last two chapters turn to the second question: how should people under toxic leadership respond?  Should they just put up with a less than desirable situation?  Should they directly challenge abuses and force a change?  Should they quietly influence change without tackling the beast head-on?  Should they just walk away?  In line with Galatians 6:1, Gangel’s first suggestion urges each person to examine himself for toxicity as “the easiest route to change.”  Once a person recognises toxicity in himself, the battle is already half done.  I suppose that is why he devotes the majority of chapters to identifying toxicity.  He wants those who live under toxic leadership to examine themselves.  He offers three humbling points for people who want to self-detox.

1.  Publicly admit any behavior which has caused your people hurt or discouragement.

2.  Ask for forgiveness and trust, and make someone you trust a monitor of your public behavior.

3.  Be patient.  Change within yourself and within the church takes time.

If you have ever worked under a toxic leader, however, you know that the self-detox scenario is a rather optimistic expectation if you can even get your toxic leader to acknowledge the book.  In the last chapter, Gangel outlines both a suggestion for getting rid of a toxic leader as well as helpful tips for those who believe they should weather the storm with patience.  In tossing out a leader, he recommends a kind of “resistance movement” made up of courageous people who believe “that leadership and true democracy is open to all” and are willing to risk their future in the organisation in the hope of change.  In other words, try this idea only if you have a well-thought out Plan B if things go awry.  “The trick requires promoting constructive conflict and preventing dysfunctional conflict.”  On the other hand, Gangel suggests that an equally courageous route is to stay put until you “clearly understand that God has finished with you in that place.”  While encouraging  his readers that God may be using that difficult situation for their own growth in Christlikeness, Gangel also presents a couple of cautions to those who consider this option.  For example, cooperating with a toxic leader does not mean that a person must sacrifice his creativity or become involved in unethical behaviour.  Disappointingly but not surprisingly, there are no easy answers when handling toxic leaders.

Many books on spiritual abuse are written to those who want inner healing from abusive leaders.   Kenn Gangel provides the Christian community with a less self-focused **model for recognising and dealing with toxic leaders.  I found this angle particularly helpful as it removed many of the more painful aspects associated with spiritual abuse so that I could more objectively think about toxic leadership as a problem to be recognised and dealt with rather than a disease to recover from.  It also helped me analyze my own leadership style and work towards detoxing my own problem areas.  Interestingly, the book is dedicated to Gangel’s son-in-law, “who has served more than enough time under the abuse of toxic leaders.”

I think that some who read this post could say that of themselves too.

** That’s not to say that I don’t believe that books that explore an abused person’s need for recovery are not helpful and necessary.  Dealing with hurt and damage caused by spiritual abuse is absolutely essential, but Gangel’s book is not designed to deal with those issues.  If you are looking for reading for a soul damaged by abuse, I recommend Soul Repair by VanVonderen, Ryan and Ryan.

 In C.S. Lewis’s Screwtape Letters, the older devil Screwtape advises his nephew Wormword about developing worldliness in humans as a work of time.  In the first section of the letter, he chides Wormwood for his failure to ensnare his “patient” (human victim) with the kind of worldly sins that probably flash into most Christian’s minds at the mention of the word “worldly.”

He has escaped the worldly friends with whom you tried to entangle him; he has “fallen in love” with a very Christian woman and is temporarily immune from your attacks on his chastity; and the various methods of corrupting his spiritual life which we have been trying are so far unsuccessful.

Wormwood’s patient lives in London during the German bombing blitz of WWII.  Since he has volunteered as an air raid warden, his safety is increasingly at risk while he is “forced to attend to his neighbours” and is “taken out of himself” by his volunteer work in the war effort. Apparently the young devil Wormwood has taken undue delight in the human suffering caused by the nightly bombings, forgetting that the ultimate devilish goal is to ensure that humans end up in the “kingdom of our Father” (hell) and not in the Enemy’s eternal world (heaven).  Screwtape urges his nephew that the death of his patient at this time – while “his worldly hopes take a proportionately lower place in his mind, . . .and [he is] daily increasing in conscious dependence on the Enemy” – will most certainly mean that Wormwood loses him forever.

If, however, the patient survives the war, Screwtape has another tactic in mind. He advises:

 . . .you have time itself for your ally. The long, dull monotonous years of middle-aged prosperity or middle-aged adversity are excellent campaigning weather [for devils trying to tempt humans]. You see, it is so hard for these creatures to persevere. The routine of adversity, the gradual decay of youthful loves and youthful hopes, the quiet despair (hardly felt as pain) of ever overcoming the chronic temptations with which we have again and again defeated them, the drabness which we create in their lives and the inarticulate resentment with which we teach them to respond to it – all this provides admirable opportunities of wearing out a soul by attrition. If, on the other hand, the middle years prove prosperous, our position is even stronger. Prosperity knits a man to the World. He feels that he is “finding his place in it”, while really it is finding its place in him. His increasing reputation, his widening circle of acquaintances, his sense of importance, the growing pressure of absorbing and agreeable work, build up in him a sense of being really at home in earth which is just what we want. . . .

 This is worldliness of a different sort.  More insidious than the glare of a more visible worldliness, it seeps into our souls as we grow tired of waiting for the promised heavenly reality of God’s unveiled glory and eternal satisfaction in Christ.  Screwtape advises that the “difficult task of unraveling [human] souls from Heaven and building up a firm attachment to the earth” is aided by time – and lots of it.  He states, “Real worldliness is a work of time – assisted, of course, by pride, for we teach them to describe the creeping death [being at home in the world] as good sense or Maturity or Experience.”

It is this brand of worldliness that goes unnoticed in many Christian circles.  While we rant about worldly dress, worldly music, worldly friends and worldly movies, we forget that worldliness is also a comfortable state of mind that has lulled us into living as though this life is all there is.  This is true even where our comforts are “spiritual” activities as long as these activities are replacing real hunger for our ultimate union with Christ.  We can become comfortable in our safety zones “away from the world” while the world has found a comfy resting place in our very souls through complacency and self-satisfaction.

That “friendship with the world” is something for a Christian to avoid is undeniable (James 4:4).  The question is, “What do worldly lusts (Titus 2:12) look like?”  Lewis describes it as the “creeping death” and “a sense of being really at home in earth.”  How do you define worldliness?

Psychotic and unpredictable, the Joker’s one goal is to throw the city into anarchy with his cruel tactic of psychological games coupled with complete disregard for human life.  The Joker’s thugs capture Harvey Dent along with Harvey’s one true love, Rachel.  In a sadistic move, the Joker forces Harvey’s friends to choose between saving Harvey’s life or that of the girl he loves.  In the ensuing terror, Rachel dies and Harvey’s face is deeply burned.  Heartbreak torments Harvey’s soul.  He refuses treatment for his scars. And then the Joker visits. He convinces Harvey, already half-mad with despair, that his revenge should be against the very city that he has fought to save.  His mutilated face an outward image of the horror within, Harvey proceeds to kill a string of people whom he believes responsible for Rachel’s death before putting his own life to an end.  His true friends, Batman and Police Commissioner Gordon, both witness Harvey’s killing spree and suicide.  Together they decide that the people of Gotham cannot afford to know that their “White Knight” finished up as a bad guy.  Batman offers to take the blame for the murders, and Commissioner Gordon makes a public tribute to Harvey’s unblemished image as the one man who courageously fought for truth and right in Gotham City.  The people get to keep their symbol of hope albeit at the expense of truth.  Kind of ironic that the hero of justice is preserved in a lie.

I’ve seen the Harvey Dent solution at work in Christian organisations too.  A well-loved missionary or pastor, a “white knight” of God’s work, is caught in a sin—perhaps financial mismanagement or immorality. In handling this awful situation, the church should face up to the frailty of its hero, deal with the sin appropriately, urge him to confess and repent, and seek to restore the fallen brother to a growing relationship with God though not to his former leadership role.  Instead, some churches practice “damage control” by protecting the image of the fallen leader as if his followers cannot bear to see their “white knight” fail.  It may involve laying the blame at the feet of someone or something else or moving the hero to another ministry or another creative cop-out.  All this is justified under the guise of saving the testimony of the church or organisation ostensibly for the sake of Christ.  But how can Jesus Christ, the Truth, be glorified by the manipulations of the spin doctor?

Although saving face at the time may seem to minimise damage, in the long term cover-ups come back like a hidden cancer cell.  Instead of going away quietly, churches and organisations have had to deal with accusations from people hurt by cover-up even decades down the track.  Instead of applying the gospel of grace to our failures, we magnify men and their work more than the work of Jesus Christ who died to free us from such sinful catastrophes.  Offenses will happen.  How we respond to those offenses reveals our understanding of gospel truth and mercy.  Even the Biblical record truthfully recounts sinful failures of our heroes of the faith: Abraham’s lie, David’s adultery and murder, and Moses’s anger, to name a few.  The gospel is not just for saving; it is for keeping too.  When we whitewash failure, we deny that gospel truth.

Why do we lift up leaders in our churches as if they have a corner on Christianity that the rest of us can only wish for?  What can we do to create a Christian culture where it is safe to fail?  How can we nurture transparency in relationships all the way from kids in Sunday school to the pastor in the pulpit?  How can our responses to sin flesh-out the truth that God’s grace not only touches our weakness and failures but is purposefully tailored to our humanness?

The Harvey Dent solution merely puts a bandaid and makeup on a tumour that resides deep within–a tumour for which there is an authentic cure.  The gospel of grace is the cure, made available through our real hero, the Lord Jesus Christ.

My ‘day job’ is all about ‘career development’. I help people achieve their goals by analyzing their skills, providing development training and arranging targeted job interviews. It is satisfying to help people grow their careers, achieve their objectives and increase their pay packets.

Ministry: A Career?

However, I have previously spent time in paid pastoral ministry. One thought that vexes me is ‘Is appropriate to consider pastoral care a ‘career’? Should not ‘serving the Lord’ be a call?’ However, from a structural standpoint, there are pecking orders and job pathways in Christian organisations. Consider progression from deacon /youth worker to elder/pastor to Senior Pastor. Alternatively, pastors are often recognized and paid more based on the size of their church membership or the number of church staff they oversee.

God tells us that if someone desires the office of an elder, they desire a good thing. So, I am comfortable with the concept of growing ministry responsibility based on the leadership gifts that the Lord provides. However, one of the qualifications for a pastor is that he must not be motivated by money or greed. Therefore, the modern practice of desiring ministry career progressive can seem somewhat incompatible with following the Lord’s calling into ministry. Does that mean all pastors be paid the same amount regardless?

Ministry: A Call?

If someone seeks to enter full-time paid ministry, part of common ‘ordination processes’ is verification of a calling on their life. This is often done after one graduates from Bible college or after demonstration of certain gifting or skills.

However, if going into ministry is calling and not a career choice, then should it follow that entering pastoral work is a one way call? From a spiritual standpoint, I have seen plenty of people laud praise when a talent vocational Christian changes tack and enters ‘paid ministry’ or ‘missionary work’. The ‘Lord’s call is celebrated. But what about when someone leaves paid ministry for vocational employment? If someone leaves the pastorate to work in the secular world, have they necessarily abandoned the calling?

The whole concept of ministry is confused in the modern day church. Why do we place unique values on dedicated ministry compared to vocational ministry?

I suspect that the above questions often haunt our ministers and in particular our bi-vocational and part time ministers.

What are your thoughts?

Let me put my cards on the table about marriage:

I don’t believe the government should have any say in marriage.  Marriage is a religious ceremony established by God.  So to be consistent, why should atheists even bother getting married?    To be further consistent, why should Christian couples bother getting a marriage certificate issued by the state.

But the reality is that since the reformation, the jurisdiction of nation states has overlapped with religious institutions.   As governments have become increasingly secular, should we be surprised or complain that they seek to reinterpret laws to apply to the civil union practices of all its citizens?  including polygamists or homosexuals?

Since the fall, homosexuality has always been present.  However the global push for homosexual marriage is unprecedented.  But why do homosexuals want to get married?

1. To receive civil union rights such as  tax/employment benefits?   These mostly now exist for both defacto and gay couples.

2. To receive validation of their relationship?  Most people who are going to agree with gay relationships already accept it.  Homosexuality is not only legal, but openly celebrated on TV and in most institutions (excluding religious ones).

3. To destroy heterosexual marriage?   This seems to be the plan.   Let me elaborate.

Ephesians 5:22+ clearly states that marriage is a divine symbol of Christ redemption of his bride – the church.    Redefining marriage then becomes a symbolic attack on the gospel.    That is why gay marriage activism is subtly anti-gospel activism.     If marriage was established by God as between a man and woman, then gay marriage is an attack on the created order.   Redefining ‘martial love’ as more than a husband and a wife, is  by extension redefining  the gospel love that Christ has for his church.

As Christians, we can sometimes be disturbed at the moral decay of social conventions.  However, at the end of the day, even when our government legalizes gay marriage, it will not be bona fida.   God established marriage and only He can authorize true marriage.   Legitimacy is determined by His view and it is only His view that counts.

Apart from our voting and democratic petitioning privileges, the best way we can respond to gay marriage activism is to cultivate our own heterosexual marriages and to teach our children accordingly.    We must not modify or be ashamed of true marriage and the gospel.  As we grow in our marriages before God, then the gospel will shine more brightly in our lives.   Furthermore, we will long all the more for the coming marriage supper of the Lamb where the redemptive gospel will be fulfilled.

Blessings

-JC

Complementarianism (n.) The belief that men and women have complementary roles and responsibilities in marriage and the church.  Leadership roles are prescribed for men; support roles are prescribed for women.

Egalitarianism (n.)  The belief that men and women are called to roles and responsibilities in  marriage and in the church based on their giftedness, regardless of gender.

Chauvinism (n.)  The belief that men and women are of intrinsically different worth, usually that men are superior to women.

Okay, I admit it– obviously chauvinism is not a legit third position.  While it should be clear to all that chauvinism is in direct opposition to biblical truth, we see it practiced (if not labeled) in many independent Baptist churches today.  That’s why I include it as a third stream of thought even though it is really only a distortion of complementarianism.  This post by blogger Wendy Alsup, who calls herself a complementarian, addresses some common pitfalls with the complementarian position.  Concluding with an exhortation to  handle the Word precisely, she draws us into a valid debate in the gender role discussion.  Read it for yourself here.

What do you think are the dangers of the complementarian position?

“Don’t you think that the pastor’s wife should have a special role in the church?”

“We just want a pastor’s wife who can help us know how to raise our kids and love our husbands.”

“Shouldn’t the pastor’s wife be able to counsel the women in the church?”

“We don’t have a ladies’ ministry at our church.  When we do get a pastor, we want his wife to lead the church women.”

What does the Bible have to say about the pastor’s wife?

Not much really.  We do know that the pastor is to have only one of them, and we can probably assume that she helps him with hospitality and in managing the household well (1 Timothy 3).   Other than that, very little is said about the role of the pastor’s wife per se.  Titus 2’s instructions to all women in the church, older and younger, obviously apply to her as well as all the other women in the church.  But should she have a special role in the church, noticeably different from others?

I think not.

Tradition has taught us that the pastor’s wife is a woman with a distinct role in the church.  Depending on our personal observations of pastor’s wives, our personal picture of her role may vary.  But most agree that the pastor’s wife ministers in a unique “pastor’s wifely” fashion.   However, contrary to the assumptions of many,  the position of pastor’s wife does not require her to teach Sunday school, or run the ladies’ Bible study, or offer personal counselling at all hours, or plan meals for new mums, or organise a playgroup, or clean the church bathrooms, or superintend the Christmas banquet, or visit the elderly, or sing in the choir, and or play the piano.  Nor should she face the pressure of  constantly keeping her brood of children under perfect control at the risk of censure by the church gossips.  Any woman, even the superhero wife of your pastor, who must constantly hold herself accountable to the expectations of others is doomed for exhaustion and failure!  The pastor’s wife, like all members of the body of Christ, needs freedom to flourish in the community of grace in relation to her individual calling (which may be very different from what others expect of her). Like all disciples of Christ, she should be pursuing godliness and contributing to the church community according to her spiritual gifting.  But her personal walk with God and her personal ministry portfolio should be no more subject to public scrutiny than that of any other church member.  Instead of piling up  her to-do list, ask yourself what you yourself are contributing to the building up of the body of Christ (Ephesians 4).  Then give your pastor’s wife the liberty to do the same without the pressure of church tradition’s guilt trip.

What are you doing to encourage your pastor’s wife to be herself in the role that God—not people’s expectations—has given her?