More on Pastors & Headship

Summary: God's design is for male leadership in the Church.

Ever since the 1970s, the question of a woman serving as a teaching elder or senior pastor has been a watershed issue for the Church. Some assert that gender is irrelevant concerning church leadership; others maintain that biblical eldership is a role held exclusively for qualified men. The controversy is rooted in the interpretation of Scripture from the creation narrative to the Pauline epistles. The two major positions that have emerged are the egalitarian and the complementarian.

Essentially, egalitarians argue that gender is irrelevant when it comes to the role of men and women in ministry; rather, they proffer that giftedness alone should be the basis for placement in leadership roles.

Conversely, complementarians affirm that men and women are equal in essence but different in function.

The complementarian view rightly expresses a more biblical view of church eldership. Biblical church eldership was designed by God to be fulfilled by qualified men according to the way in which men uniquely express their manhood as redeemed persons. Likewise, God intends for women to uniquely express their womanhood as redeemed persons by gladly submitting to the leadership of men. In support of this position, a right understanding of 1) Genesis 1-3, 2) 1 Timothy 2:9-15, and 3) the intra-Trinitarian relationship, will demonstrate that it is God’s design for biblical eldership to be held by men alone.

Two objections that might be raised to this argument are: 1) the complementarian position is merely a hierarchical understanding of the superiority of men and the inferiority of women in relation to each other and to God, and this understanding is contrary to the freedom of the gospel because it demeans women, and 2) the complementarian position wrongly interprets Genesis 2 by seeing multiple proofs of male authority.

In response to the first objection, it is a false assumption to consider every relationship involving subordination or a structural hierarchy as necessarily implying that one is superior in essence and the other is inferior in essence.

In response to the second objection, the multiple proofs of male authority in Genesis 2 are clear. And this objection comes dangerously close to committing two fallacies: exclusion of the middle and appeal to selective evidence (whereas if one is to consider the perspicuity of Scripture, the objection will not hold up to the historical interpretation of Genesis 2, of which is the way Paul took it as well).

The complementarian view rightly expresses a more biblical view of church eldership, in which women and other men in the church are to submit entirely to an eldership comprised exclusively of qualified men.

Let me know if you would like the "guts" of the argument.

Pastors & Headship

I've been thinking a lot about the pastor's responsibility of shepherding the church, and how he is only effective to the extent of, firstly, the Father shepherding him, and secondly, the measure of his shepherding his own family. And I believe this is so right because the pastor does not make the church! The Church belongs to Christ! The Good Shepherd cares for each individual believer. The Christian life is not meant to be lived out in solitude so the Father's design is inthe oneness of the marriage relationship (God, husband, wife), which is based on the oneness of the Trinitarian relationship (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). Just as the Father decrees what will be, the Son carries out the will of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father given by the Son to carry out the will of the Father and the Son (the Spirit only does the will of the Son and the Father) in the hearts of believers, so the husband seeks to do the Lord's will as he leads/guides/directs his family as he is the head of his family as the Father is in the Godhead and Christ is the Head of the Church. Anyways, by the power of the Spirit, the pastor submits to God, the Father Almighty, and fixes his eyes on Christ. In doing so, as the God-appointed head of his wife and family, he shepherds them to carry out the will of the Father, in the power of the Spirit with heart and mind set on heavenly things where Christ is seated at the right hand of the throne of God. Likewise, he shepherds his church most assuringly glorifying God in the power of the Spirit and face set like flint on Jesus Christ, the Author and Finisher of our faith. So future pastor, do you bear the burden of your wife and children? Do you find rest for your soul in Jesus? Future pastor, you do that, and your church will be a God-glorifying, Spirit-empowered, Christ-exalting, Gospel-saturated, cross-centered, soul-winning, mission-driven, disciple-making movement crushing the evil one in its path and going to the ends of the world. All this, from the Father's command, the Spirit's empowerment and for the glory of Christ. Pray for me to continually lay my worldly cares at the feet of King Jesus and bear the burdens of Meghan, Jack, Isabel and Schaeffer as Christ does for the Church so we may all see how great our God really is and know of his holy justice and loving-kindness.

L'Abri(ish)

Hey guys, just thought I'd share this with you. You know how the Schaeffers and the story of L'Abri have influenced my philosophy of ministry. Well, I met someone today who was influenced in a similar way. Dr. Parker, Professor of Worldview and Culture at SBTS, caught the vision of L'Abri early on in his academic career, and ten years ago, he started the Trinity Institute in Texas. Here's the website- www.thetrinityinstitute.org. I'm encouraged to see someone be effected by God's work through the Schaeffers and try something similar though not exact. Lord-willing, I hope we will do something like it someday (probably not in Texas!).

Elliot on Femininity

I would be the last to deny that women are given gifts that they are meant to exercise. But we must not be greedy in insisting on having all of them, in usurping the place of men. We are women, and my plea is Let me be a woman, holy through and through, asking for nothing but what God wants to give me, receiving with both hands and with all my heart whatever that is. No arguments would ever be needed if we all shared the spirit of the "most blessed among women."

-Elisabeth Elliot

I pray for a renewed passion for biblical femininity among women like that of Elisabeth Elliot and for a strong foundation of biblical masculinity among men on which it may thrive.

Who is a romancer?

I've been reading a book (Romancing Your Child's Heart) that qualifies what it looks like to really show your child who God is and what he has done. The deeper I get into the book the more I realize this is not just about parenting. It's about all of life. Jesus did it for the disciples, and the disciples kept it going... yada, yada, yada... church history. I love books that show a depth greater than their acual content. So, who is a romancer? A romancer is one who naturally affects those around them with the very passion they possess for someone or something. That's my abstraction. If you want to see it in the flesh, then you must simply come over to my house and ask me for a cup of coffee (in all seriousness). This is my formal offer. Take it or leave it.

Here are Monte Swan's characteristics:

A Childlike Heart
Simple Faith
A Courageous Spirit
Joy
Laughter
A "Glad Game" Spirit (think "glass is half-full" sort of)
Finding Beauty With the Eyes of Love
Trustworthiness
A Passion for Truth

There is so much more to this book. For instance, think how incremental the art of storytelling is in our world. That's all for now. If I continue, I may just have to quote the book at length.

John Piper, Saint Augustine, and Pornography

vera tu et summa sauvitas - Augustine

I love Augustine's view of God. I love John Piper's view of God. Their view of God comes from the Bible. The Bible's view of God works for me very well.

The Travels of William Li

Let me direct your attention to a new blog listed on this site- William Li's Travels. Will is journeying to Japan to spend one year there studying. The dude has a heart for Jesus and a passion to spread the gospel to the world. While his intention is to study in Japan, he believes God will use him for more than that during his time there. I will be frequenting this site to see how his time goes.

Phillip Johnson's Darwin on Trial

In the epilogue, Johnson updates the reader on the impact the book has made in the scholarly community as well as in the public domain. He asks the questions: what is a critic of evolution and why is criticism so unusual? He emphasizes that for him it is not a Bible versus science debate. He is interested in what scientific investigation has to tell us about the origin and history of life. The main argument of his book has been to recognize that we know a great deal less than has been claimed in evolutionary science. He points out that he is a critic of evolution because he distinguishes between naturalistic philosophy and empirical science and that he opposes the former when it comes cloaked in the authority of the latter. He poses that naturalistic evolution is not merely a scientific theory; it is the official creation story of modern culture.

Johnson brings up Stephen Jay Gould’s responses to much of these questions and notices how dangerously close he comes to admitting bias and prejudice in conducting scientific study. Gould unwittingly laid into destroying the argument of Darwin on Trial, but Johnson was elated because he realized he had struck a nerve in America’s most prominent Darwinist. In one place Gould was even self-refuting on the relationship of science and religion. Johnson goes on to retell his interaction with Michael Ruse, a philosophical Darwinist, where they debated on the campus of Southern Methodist University. About a year later, Ruse was asked to speak at conference about Darwin on Trial, without the presence of Johnson, in which he mentioned his previous discussions with Johnson to be “quite constructive.” The audience it seems was stunned with silence. They obviously did not know what to do with his statement. To this Arthur Shapiro remarked that Ruse was fully conceding to Johnson. Johnson notes that Shapiro’s remarks illustrate a misconception about theism as though one has to abandon science to recognize supernatural reality. His primary goal in writing Darwin on Trial was to legitimate the assertion of a theistic worldview in the secular universities. Johnson is certain that one can not be a theistic evolutionist because the mind can not serve two masters. People need to be willing to challenge false doctrines with clear-minded, reasoned arguments.

To read more of this summary, email me.

Darwin's theory of evolution is not consistent with the Christian worldview

The biblical data leaves no option for a Christian to hold to any version or aspect of Darwin’s theory of evolution. A healthy acknowledgement of the many and diverse views on origins in the past and in the 21st Century presents the theistic evolutionist with a problem. Even prior to the biblical data, the current challenges to evolutionary theory present the theistic evolutionist with a problem. The theistic evolutionist faces the issue of integrity when it comes to these problems. Still, for the theistic evolutionist, who insists on keeping their position, the biblical data denies the right to maintain a middle ground between biblical Christianity and the theory of naturalistic evolution. When it comes to naturalism and the Bible, there can be no “theoretical Switzerland.” The biblical data has demonstrated that theistic evolution is an unsatisfactory view of the origin of the universe on at least five important points (mentioned above). Finally, in light of the biblical data, theistic evolution is not a viable framework through which a Christian may view the origin of the universe.

To read more, email me.

Josh

I was Shoved.

Looking back on the past two years of my life, I feel almost like Chris Farley in that awful movie Almost Heroes - where he falls down the mountain and gets to the bottom and replies, "What was that all about..." or something like it. That feeling he had at the bottom of the mountain is the feeling I have had before. The beauty of it is that God was the one who kinda shoved me down the mountain. He was waiting at the bottom, too. I am glad that I took that tumble though. Just like Chris' character, I collected an experience by hitting rocks, dirt, and grass. I have often wondered when I share our story if people think, "so was Boston a failure then?" Or "was Tennessee a failure?" OR "was Texas a failure?" I can't help but chuckle, because it is really me asking those questions. Someone asked me once "did you follow God?" Yes, was my reply. Yes I believe that we followed God from PCB to Boston and from there to TN and then He moved us to Texas and now He has us here in North Alabama. Following God is not failure. The author of the book of James says that anyone who hears God's words and does not do them is like a man who doesn't remember what his face looks like. It's not that he can't it's that he doesn't remember. The thing about remembering is that it requires some mental struggle. How hard is it really to remember what your face is like after looking in a mirror? Being obedient to the word of God then, after hearing the Truth plainly, was never the difficult part. The difficult part is convincing others that you're not crazy. I have discovered that obedience is not glamorous or even the thing that looks good. I desire to glorify God with my life. That means that I have to die to myself and my selfish desires. Especially when they look like they going to please other people. That is terrifying to a people pleaser. But, God has really helped me to walk 1 Thessalonians 2:4. The problem with truly trying to walk in this truth is that you can hurt people who love you. It's usually people who don't understand the call of God or the way He does things that get confused and angry. God's people have for the most part loved us through these difficult times. I have no idea why I had to move to Boston for God to get me 375 miles from where we were in 2005. All I know is that I met some great people, had a great adventure and have grown in a deeper understanding of the Way of Jesus. The Way of Jesus is difficult. I am glad He shoved me.

Bon Voyage!

Saint Brendan’s Prayer
(“ascribed to Saint Brendan the Navigator before sailing across the Atlantic”)

Shall I abandon, O King of mysteries, the soft comforts of home?
Shall I turn my back on my native land, and turn my face towards the sea?
Shall I put myself wholly at your mercy,
without silver, without a horse,
without fame, without honor?
Shall I throw myself wholly upon You,
without sword and shield, without food and drink,
without a bed to lie on?
Shall I say farewell to my beautiful land, placing myself under Your yoke?
Shall I pour out my heart to You, confessing my manifold sins and begging forgiveness,
tears streaming down my cheeks?
Shall I leave the prints of my knees on the sandy beach,
a record of my final prayer in my native land?
Shall I then suffer every kind of wound that the sea can inflict?
Shall I take my tiny boat across the wide sparkling ocean?
O King of the Glorious Heaven, shall I go of my own choice upon the sea?
O Christ, will You help me on the wild waves?

(www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintb21.html)

Norton Lectures 2007: Dr. Robert P. George

I am not so blog-savvy as Justin Taylor, so I will stand upon his shoulders to make links available to the rest of you (also, I like his site, so I'm happy to add readers to it, if I may). Follow this link, and you will find the other links associated with this post. With that said, allow me to comment just below:

Between Two Worlds: Robert George at Southern Seminary

Professor George eloquently and adequately delivered the most plausible argument for the personhood of human embryos by proving scientifically that a human embryo is in its totality a human being. This is significant because many of the opponents of the pro-life movement simply will not accept any other type of argument. Most do not allow for a fully-developed philosophical or theological argument. As a theological student, I listened to what he had to say in all three lectures and left the room feeling empowered to engage my culture about these issues (human embryos, sanctity of marriage and judiciary encroachment). I want to do everything in my power to support and empower students with the potential to influence society the way Professor George has and continues. I am extremely encouraged to know of people like him that are in positions like he is. He is on the front line, fighting with great fervor and conviction. Listen to the lectures and learn how to understand the real core of the arguments many people just do not know or understand. If you have any questions or thoughts about the lectures, feel free to ask me. While I took a good bit of notes, I'm sure I won't be able to do Professor George complete justice, so make sure you listen to his lectures well before asking me anything.

A "Peace" of Colossians

Over the last few months I've been leading our church through Paul’s letter to the Colossian church. I have always loved this letter because of the place in which it elevates Jesus. I love the description of Him there in chapter one- Rescuer, Image of the invisible God, Creator, Sustainer, Centerpiece of everything that has ever been, Redeemer...there is so much about the Christ there in the first chapter. A detailed examination of this could be an entire series of posts in themselves.

In chapter 3 Paul has shifted from examining who Jesus is and is now addressing this church's proper response to who Jesus is. Paul does this by giving them practical instructions on conduct and living. He says in verse 15 to "let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts to which indeed you were called into one body" (NAS). So many times I do not see the right picture of that word peace. I feel that we have made this into something that is almost fluffy. But it's not just a warm fuzzy feeling that comes over me and masks the bad stuff in my life. Sure, trusting in Jesus will bring an assurance that He is in control of all things, especially in times of suffering, pain and uncertainty. But this peace that should rule our hearts is the peace that He purchased between God and man. The redemption that Believers have entered into...the ability now not to sin...the demand for Jesus to be "our very life" (Col. 3:4). This opens up a new realm for the word "peace." It's not political peace that we should seek. It is inevitable that sinful man will engage in conflict. It is not a peaceful, balanced core or center that New Age thought tells us we need. Instead, the word peace that guides our hearts goes back to the fundamentals of salvation. Everything that was made accessible through the peace that Christ made should now be what becomes the ruler of our lives. I would much rather have this definition of peace in my life instead of a calm feeling. This peace is not one that leaves after the situation subsides. It is enduring throughout the ages.

I don't think this idea of peace ruling our lives would be nearly as big of a deal if it were not for the presentation and explanation of who Jesus is back in chapter 1 of Colossians. Now, because that One who is all of those things has purchased peace, we are called to live a life of holiness. Because it is Jesus, the Creator and first born of all creation who sustains all things, my heart longs to live a life of holiness. I no longer seek peace. I am enthralled with living a life in response to peace.

Thoughts on Titus 2:1 through 3:2

In chapter Five of Jerry Bridges book, The Discipline of Grace, I have been challenged to examine my life based on what our dear brother Paul writes to his friend Titus. Here is a link to the Scripture passage.

The apostle Paul has for us in this letter wonderful encouragement and exhortation on Practical Christian Living. His foundation being the grace and mercy of our Lord Jesus, in His death and resurrection and in turn His matchless gift of faith, Paul almost pleads with Titus and through him to us, the need for dead to self honest Christian living. Bridges says that Paul sums it up in three words: self-controlled, upright, and godly. He then goes on to unpack what Paul's intentions were in writing to those early Christians on how to live. Paul addresses various groups but, one could put themselves in the place of any age group and even some of the more gender specific instructions and gain from heeding the teaching there. A passage that Bridges point out and that stood out to me even as I meditated on it seperate from the reading in the book, was Titus 2:5; "that the word of God may not be reviled". He is specifially speaking to the women or wives in the context of those believers, however, what struck me was that this tiny (not even a sentence) portion can be applied to so many facets of my life. It begs me to go beyond the question of whether it is permissible or lawful for me to do this or that. It asks me. "will this (conduct, activity, object in my hand) that is visible for all to see going to cause people to love the Word of God or to hate it. In verse 10, Paul writes, "so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive." (NIV) Paul was concerned with the reputation of the Word and the Gospel of Jesus. His main goal was to attract people to the Cross of Christ. His desire then was to see those Cretan Christians live in such a way that non-believers would desire to become disciples of Jesus. The ESV renders verse 10 using the phrase "they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior." Adorn is a word we use in our culture to make something look better. Like the NIV's usage of attractive here, Paul is saying that our conduct must not make the teachings, the Word, the Truth of Jesus - well, ugly.

An unbelieving world that is growing more antagonistic towards true Christianity, must have modeled for it the beauty of the Gospel wrapped up in the life of the disciple who is self-controlled, upright and godly. Living on purpose to be examples at work, playing games, driving in traffic, our giving, our spending, so that unbelievers would see the gospel in our lives. I have found while reading Bridges book, that I have been neglecting preaching the Gospel to myself. And if I don't preach it to myself how then can I preach it to those who have never heard it or are ill-disposed to the Savior who would set them free. This book has been helping everyday, page by page, to preach the gospel again, first to myself and to others. The Gospel of Jesus' life, death and resurrection for the forgiveness of my sins! The Gospel. The Gospel! What Good News it is! May we love it, live it and preach it. I am learning that there can be no complaining in preaching the Gospel. There is only thanksgiving and praise. Oh how sweet that the Savior was nailed to a Roman cross to conquer sin and death for me. To crucify me and my lusts along with Him thus, wiping out all of my iniquities and shame and guilt. This allows me to walk with Him in the newness of life enabling me to live a self-controlled, upright and godly life. And this in turn makes Him and His Word all the more beautiful and attractive to those who long to become one in the fellowship of the redeemed.

"Come and see the man who knows everything about me..."

I find then for me that the principle of 1 Thessalonians 5:18 applies as well, "give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you."