• Exegetically informed
• Grace-oriented; gospel-centered; Christ-focused
• Theologically Coherent – Generally Reformed
• Diversity on Minor Issues – i.e. eschatology, creationism, gifts,

Corporate Worship

• God and gospel-centered
• Diverse stylistically
• Celebrative and reflective
• Blend of ancient and contemporary forms
• Participatory not performance
• Informal but ordered

Leadership

• Modeling godliness and love
• Theologically informed
• A passion for God, for the church, and for the lost
• Sacrificial and serving
• Humble and deferrin

Evangelism

• Everyday by everyone
• Relational and Strategic
• Relevant and Considerate
• Prayerful and patient
• A dance not a war
• A process not an event

Small Group Relationships

• Accepting and affirming
• Committed to Community
• Transparent and forgiving
• Growing in grace and knowledge

Ministries

• Committed to Serve Others
• Mercy-oriented
• Teamwork
• Mission-oriented
• Excellence and effectiveness
• Accountable to the Leadership
• FAT people (Fathful, Available, Teachable)
• Involving others

Stewardship

• Care for physical property
• Fiscally responsible
• Generous
• Grace-giving
• Pursuing Quality and excellence

Lifestyles

• Biblically informed
• Empowered by Grace
• Ruled by love
• Pursuing Holiness
• Non-judgmental
• Deferring to others

The Ten Commandments clearly condemn murder and most of us are content to live within the Sixth Commandment.  However, in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus unpacks that commandment for us and shows us that murder begins in the heart with anger and hatred. Society and civil authority do their best to restrain murder; they are powerless to restrain anger, hatred, and envy. We are personally powerless to overcome anger, hate, and envy.

The truth is that all of us have experienced and tolerated a bit of anger, hate, and envy in our own hearts.  We live with racism, class warfare, religious hatred, national and ethnic pride, offending and being offended, etc. Though we are restrained from murder by social pressure, self-discipline, fear of consequences, and lack of opportunity, the seeds of murder have been sown in all of our hearts.

Jesus Christ did not come simply to insure a ‘murder-free’ society. He came to change hearts and transform lives. He came to show us and teach us how to love God and love others, even to love our enemies.

But, He came for more than that. He came to defeat Satan who is a ‘murderer from the beginning’ and whose murderous path we are inclined to follow. He came to break the power that sin has over our hearts causing us to think more of ourselves rather than God and others.  He came to conquer death so that we can live without the fear of losing this world and the stuff of this world, knowing that we have the world to come. His death and resurrection assure us that He is victorious in what He came to accomplish.

It was anger, hate, and envy that filled the crowd as they forced Jesus to the cross, crying ‘Crucify Him.’ Yes, Jesus, the Innocent One was murdered with such intense hatred and anger that no gun control legislation or mental health system could have rescued him from the intensity of human evil.

Adam Lanza’s horrendous evil act reminds us of what is wrong with humanity. Evil exists in all of us. At times it may be restrained and confined to the inner life; at times it might lash out in in more acceptable forms; at times it reveals itself in unfettered horror. Evil exists.

The grace of God at work in our lives diminishes anger, hate, and envy. The work of the Holy Spirit creates an experience of God’s love that enables us to love in ways we never thought possible.

If Adam Lanza had known and experienced the grace of God and the transforming power of the Holy Spirit, we would be discussing a better story.  This is why we continue to preach the gospel.

Why I continue to evangelize other “Christians”

‘Christian’ is a broad term that includes millions who have various understandings of the person and work of Jesus Christ, who identify with a myriad of Christian institutions, and who do many good works in Jesus name.   Yet, despite vast theological differences that exist among Christians, there is a persistent call for unity. The rise of Islam throughout the world, the deterioration of Christian values in the west, and the design to remove all vestiges of Christianity from the public sphere contribute to the growing rapprochement among those who call themselves Christians.

If Christianity is divided, so it is argued, then God’s love is misrepresented to the world and, if divided, it will be unable to withstand the social and political attacks it suffers in the 21^st century. Consequently, there is a rising cry for Christians to not proselytize from other Christian groups.   This move to ‘Christian unity’ is represented by both ECT (Evangelicals and Catholics Together) and the WCC (World Council of Churches) who call for an end to proselytizing, as well as others.  Listen to the voice of those involved with ECT:

 Three observations are in order in connection with proselytizing. First, as much as we might believe one community is more fully in accord with the Gospel than another, we as Evangelicals and Catholics affirm that opportunity and means for growth in Christian discipleship are available in our several communities. Second, the decision of the committed Christian with respect to his communal allegiance and participation must be assiduously respected. Third, in view of the large number of non-Christians in the world and the enormous challenge of our common evangelistic task, it is neither theologically legitimate nor a prudent use of resources for one Christian community to proselytize among active adherents of another Christian community [underline is mine] (http://tinyurl.com/ye5jntg).

Similarly, the WCC says:

Despite all efforts to combat it, the problem of proselytism is still with us, causing painful tensions in church relationships and undermining the credibility of the Church’s witness to God’s universal love. Ultimately, proselytism is a sign of the real scandal which is division. [underline is mine] By placing the issue of proselytism in the context of church unity and of common witness we suggest a perspective which makes it possible to approach the problem within an adequate theological framework (http://tinyurl.com/6qajmf4).

On the one hand, I agree that Christian churches should not proselytize from other Christian churches when churches agree on the essential promise of the gospel, i.e. through faith alone in the finished work of Christ on the cross and His resurrection from the dead, sinners are brought into immediate and complete reconciliation with and justification before God; thereby rejecting any notion of saving grace mediated through the church or through the addition of any human work. The gospel asserts the sufficiency and completeness of the work of Christ in redemption removing any suggestion that our acceptance before a holy God is an unfinished process.

Wherever the gospel is blurred, diluted, or rejected I will continue to evangelize. I will evangelize ‘Christians’ who depend upon the church and its sacraments to gradually infuse God’s saving grace into them; I will evangelize those whose clearest understanding of being a Christian is “I was baptized’ or ‘I go to Church’ or ‘I receive Jesus every week in communion’ or ‘I try to live by the ten commandments or the golden rule.’

I will evangelize ‘Christians’ who actually believe in a Christ who is not the Christ of the Bible. He is simply a good teacher, a prophet, or one who opens a path of salvation for some but is equally gracious to those who come another way.

Because the gospel of Jesus Christ is of ultimate and eternal importance, I will forego the temporal protection of a wider, visible Christian unity for the present and eternal security in having spiritual unity with Christ and others believers.

True Christian unity is unity with those who through the gospel have been brought into union with Christ. The gospel creates a union with Christ that is not a gradual, unfinished process but a perfect, finished reality.  There is no middle ground in the gospel. You either are in union with Christ or not. You are either sealed with the Holy Spirit or not. You are either passed from death unto life or not. You are either ‘born anew’ or not. You have been adopted in God’s family or not. You either have been justified before God or not. You are either transferred out of the kingdom of darkness into his marvelous light, or not. The gospel brings about a perfect union with Christ not a possible union.

This is how I understand the offer of the gospel and this is why I evangelize other ‘Christians’ who are hoping to be saved, who are doing their best, who love Jesus in some romanticized way, who follow one of the various ‘Christian’ traditions hoping for eternal life, etc.

What a tragic diminution of the work of Christ to think that my salvation can be achieved or completed through my own religious effort in life or some purgatorial purification at the end.

Sadly, the call for visible Christian unity too often dilutes the clarity of the gospel. Contrary to what Evangelicals and Catholics Together say about proselytizing, it is a prudent use of resources to evangelize those who are adherents of another Christian community, when that Christian community has blurred, diluted, or rejected the gospel of Jesus Christ. And, contrary to the World Council of Churches, the real scandal is not division within ‘Christianity’, but the scandal of seeking a unity that is willing to sacrifice the gospel which alone offers eternal union with Christ.

Clarifying the “Means of Grace”

The term ‘means of grace’ is used by Roman Catholics and Protestants, and many evangelicals. Historically, the term comes out of the Roman Catholic Church which teaches that the sacraments (7 of them) are means by which the saving grace of God is communicated. The Reformers retained the terminology but nuanced the understanding of the sacraments (2 of them) as ‘the means by which saving grace is applied and confirmed.’[1]

Both Roman Catholicism and Reformed Protestants institutionalize the means of grace, i.e. the sacramental means are neither available apart from institutions nor apart from the administration of ordained clergy. In many religious circles ordained men and women and religious institutions have control of the means of grace.  In Catholicism, this is taken to the extreme of the church being the repository of God’s grace which priests distribute through the sacraments. In Protestantism, denominations differ on the depth and breadth of ‘sacramentalism,’[2] while generally in agreement that the means of grace are available only through ordained clergy.

Recently, as I led the observance of the Lord’s Table, I mentioned that I preferred to call the observance of the table an ordinance rather than a sacrament.  I prefer the term ‘ordinance’ for both baptism and the Lord’s Table. They are visible signs of the gospel, instituted by Christ for His church, pointing us to the grace that God has given us in Christ. They are not means to receive the free grace of God but means by which to appreciate and value that grace.[3]  Contrary to the Westminster Shorter Catechism,[4] the ‘benefits of the New Covenant’ (WSC, 92) are ‘represented’ but not ‘sealed and applied’ to believers through the sacraments.

The Bible does not teach that baptism and the Lord’s Table are means of grace.[5] Though I appreciate much of Reformed theology, the use of the extra-biblical phrase ‘means of grace’ creates unfortunate confusion. Sacramentalism coupled with an inordinate emphasis on the institution of the church and ordained clergy mistakenly results in one’s dependence upon the church and ordained clergy to receive grace from God.

Please don’t mistake what I am saying. I believe in the church, i.e. both the church universal composed of all those who confess faith in Christ alone as Savior and Lord and the local church composed of believers in a particular locality gathered for the worship and mission of Christ. I believe in the ordination of qualified men to the ministry of the Word. I believe in the necessity of corporate worship, Christian community, and a shared gospel mission. However, the Bible does not teach that the church is a repository and dispenser of the grace of God through the sacraments.[6] While the New Testament teaches the priesthood of all believers, it does not teach that ordination grants anyone privileged access to grace which they can then mediate or distribute to others.

God’s grace is His all sufficient goodness that He offers us in and through the person and work of Jesus Christ (John 1:14-17). God’s grace is only and always mediated through the person of Jesus Christ.  When we believe God’s Word and look to Christ in faith, He gives us grace directly. There are biblical means which point us to our Gracious Savior that we might look to him in faith, such as the Word, baptism, and the Lord’s Table, but inherently they are not instrumental means of receiving grace.  We come to God through Christ for grace. The church through its ministry of the Word and ordinances has a unique role in pointing us to the grace that is in Christ Jesus.

A faithful church will encourage you to look to Christ in faith through its preaching, its public worship, its baptisms, and its celebrations of the Lord’s Table. As you look to the risen Christ in faith, you will find sufficient grace to save and sustain you.  There are numerous means which can point you to the sufficiency of the grace of Christ, but that grace can only be received from God through the mediating work of our prophet, priest, and King, Jesus Christ.

REFLECTIONS ON PREACHING

I write as one who loves preaching – both as a preacher and a listener – and who believes that preaching the Word is central in corporate worship.  I appreciate the diversity of styles, personalities, and approaches to preaching. I have learned through the years to glean something from most preachers, though admittedly I cannot help evaluating when others preach. When I sit and listen, which probably is not often enough, I have some reasonable (at least in my mind) expectations in preaching. Here are a few of my aspirations for preaching:

1. I hope that a preacher will come to the pulpit having studied and prayed over a biblical text, having grasped its central meaning, having seized its relevance, having been moved by its message, and having seen how it points to Christ.
2. I hope that the preacher will lead me to the worship of a holy and merciful God and not distract me by either his slovenly or flamboyant manner or appearance.
3. I hope that he will not think too much about being cool or funny, or Avant-garde with his theology, though he may be naturally cool or funny without trying.
4. I hope that when he stands before the people of God that he will speak as one who speaks for God.  He will speak boldly (standing erect with feet square and shoulders back – not leaning on the pulpit, not crossing his legs, no hands in the pocket, not nervously shuffling back and forth), clearly (projecting his voice beyond a conversational level, with diction that is precise, and with words that are well chosen), passionately (being personally moved by the implications of this message from God), and humbly (knowing he performs a sacred task which depends upon the Spirit’s power).
5. I hope that the introduction will draw me into the message and that the body of the sermon will logically argue the main point while reflecting the biblical text, and that the conclusion will tell me what to do with what I just heard.
6. Overall, I hope for an outworking of 2 Timothy 4:1-2 “I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom:  ² preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.”

May we all be encouraged by those who have proven to be faithful in the task of preaching:

• “We need to pray until our text comes freshly alive to us, the glory shines forth from it, the fire burns in our heart, and we begin to experience the explosive power of God’s Word within us” (John Stott).

• “I preached as never sure to preach again and as a dying man to dying men” (Richard Baxter).

• “Our ministry must be emphatic, or it will never affect these thoughtless times; and to this end our hearts must be habitually fervent, and our whole nature must be fired with an all-consuming passion for the glory of God and the good of men” (C.H. Spurgeon)

• “All Christian preaching should be the exposition and application of biblical texts. Our authority as preachers sent by God rises and falls with our manifest allegiance to the text of Scripture” (John Piper).

• “Lack of intensity in preaching can only communicate that the preacher has never been seriously gripped by the reality of which he speaks – or that the subject matter is insignificant” (John Piper).

Ordinary Pastors

I have in hand another invitation to a big name conference with a big name speaker. I could go and hang out around the coffee pot with ordinary pastors, but I am told that the important stuff comes from the important people.

My brother Steve and I have spoken from time to time on how glad we are to be part of the Evangelical Free Church of America. One of the reasons is that there is no single awe-inspiring individual with whom the Free Church is identified. It is not a movement of personalities. We had looked at other church planting groups who were led by powerful, ‘successful,’ personalities, yet we chose the Free Church as a movement of ordinary pastors led by ordinary men who are seeking to be faithful to the work and Word of God.

Some time ago I read Don Carson’s book Memoirs of an Ordinary Pastor: the Life and Reflections of Tom Carson in which he told the story of the faithful work of his father laboring in small churches in Quebec. The Reformed Reader summarizes the book aptly:

This book is not exciting.  Rev. Tom Carson’s life was pretty normal – though perhaps a little more difficult than average because he labored in such hard soil (the Quebec area in the ’40s and beyond).  He is not very quotable, and his journals aren’t full of moving and inspiring writing.  Rev. Carson even suffered through periods of melancholy because he didn’t have a high view of himself; he sometimes questioned his abilities and calling.  So if you want a book about self-motivation, conquering the world for Christ, starting a thriving ministry, or building a multi-campus church, don’t get this book.  You’ll be sorely disappointed.

However, if you want to see what the life of an ordinary pastor is like, this book belongs on your shelf.  I’m guessing that most of our readers are in the context of a smaller church whose pastor is not known by more than a few hundred people.  This book is for those pastors!  And I’d encourage parishioners to read it as well, just to get an idea of what it’s like to simply be a Christian pastor, father, and husband who does his best to follow the Lord in faith and obedience (http://tinyurl.com/7rh6n6s).

I enjoy the company of ordinary pastors. They have not written a book that has cast them into such prominence that they have left their church to talk about the book. They have not experienced such phenomenal church growth that they have become itinerant evangelists of church success. They do not tweet often and are rarely, if ever, re-tweeted. They have no unique and engaging story to tell that sets them apart from other ordinary pastors – at least not one that many want to listen to. They are ordinary.

They seek to be 1 Timothy 3 kind of men; they are faithful in preparation and preaching; they are involved in evangelism, discipleship, shepherding, and community involvement.  They are ordinary.

Because they are ordinary, they have no need of being the center of attention. They actually care about other ordinary pastors and are interested in what is going on in the lives and ministries of ordinary pastors. I have one such valued friend who over the course of our friendship has never sought to impress me with his successes but who, unintentionally, has impressed me with his faithfulness. He is an ordinary pastor who one day will hear the words, “Well done, ordinary pastor (good and faithful servant). Enter into the joy of the Lord.”

May God give us more ordinary pastors and maybe even more conferences for ordinary pastors led by ordinary leaders.

True Christian fellowship is based on Tier One commitments to the Gospel and to Biblical Moral Essentials (summarized in the Great Commandments). These Biblical Moral Essentials provide growing evidence of one’s genuine experience of the Gospel. Tiers 2-4 should not constitute a basis for Christian fellowship.

The Gospel creates spiritual union with Christ and union with other believers. Biblical Moral Essentials give outward evidence of the reality of that union with Christ.

We should not grant Christian fellowship to those who lay claim to the gospel, yet deny perspicuous biblical morality.

Personal Beliefs/Opinions

Denominational Distinctives

Theological Systems

Doctrine Essential to the Gospel

Personal Convictions

Debatable issues

Cultural applications of biblical morality

Perspicuous Biblical Morality

I love the celebration of Christmas especially when it turns my focus to the incarnation of the Divine Warrior who would come and rescue us from the kingdom of darkness. Though we may sing, “Silent Night, Holy Night, All is Calm, All is Bright,” our theology suggests that more than that was going on that night. Hell was raging. Satan was fuming. The demons were preparing for the greatest confrontation between the powers of evil and the power of God.

Way back in the Garden, God had ordained that hostility would exist between Satan and those whom God had created in His image to worship and serve Him. The Old Testament narrative portrays that hostility in the frequent attempts of various enemies to destroy the people of God. Time and again, Yahweh fights for His people and delivers them. He chooses warriors like Gideon and David who fight the enemies of God and His people.

As we read these narratives through the lens of the New Testament, we realize that a great spiritual hostility lay behind these physical battles between nations. The attempts to eliminate the people of God were designed by Satan to thwart the coming of that One whom God promised would come and ‘crush the head” of Satan.  The Lord’s sovereign and powerful interventions in behalf of His people renewed hope that the ultimate Divine Warrior would come and defeat the great foe of mankind.

Christmas is the birth of a King, a Warrior King, a Divine King. Though He is the Prince of Peace he comes, not to appease or accommodate evil, but to destroy evil and to crush the evil one.  He is born to defeat sin, Satan, and death.  The life and ministry of Jesus vividly portray the confrontations He had with Satan and the demonic world. Unlike the first Adam, Jesus comes through every time as one who triumphs over evil.

Satan was relentless in His attacks against this One who is called “the Son of God” and within the eternal plan of God is allowed to incite the mobs to kill Jesus. Death would be Satan’s final vanquishing of the Divine Warrior.  Death was Satan’s last and most powerful weapon to bring against Jesus. However, little did Satan know that God would use this powerful weapon of death to be the very means by which Satan himself would be defeated. Satan unleashed his great fury in the death of Jesus only to have it recoil and crush the great enemy of mankind.

14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. (Heb 2:14-15 ESV)

“Up from the grave He arose with a might conquest of His foes. He arose a victor from the dark domain and He lives forever with His saints to reign. He arose. He arose. Hallelujah Christ arose!”

Jesus Christ – the same, yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8)

The immutability of Christ comforts and assures us through the inevitable changes of life.  Life is full of changes – some for the better – some for the worse.  In a world of rapid and unpredictable change, we know one who is the same, yesterday, today, and forever.  This immutable character of Jesus Christ concludes the book of Hebrews in a similar way to how the book began. Listen to some of those beginning words:

Hebrews 1:8-12   ⁸ ¶ But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.  ⁹ You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”  ¹⁰ And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;  ¹¹ they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment,  ¹² like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end.”

Is not this our comfort? He is the same. In a world where governments change, economies change, physical appearances changes, friends changes, climates change (so I’m told) —  In a world of certain, but unpredictable change, what can you depend on?

This is the central question of the book of Hebrews and the central issue of life? WHO IS THIS IMMUTABLE JESUS? Is Jesus the same – yesterday, today, and forever? The resounding answer is Jesus is the Same.  As you read through the book of Hebrews you will find the at least following affirmations about the immutability of Jesus.

• He is the same son of God, image of the father, creator of heavens and earth.
• He is the same one who takes on humanity that he may experience death for every man,
• He is the same one who pioneers and blazes the trail of salvation for all who will follow Him.
• He is the same one who sanctifies us and is not ashamed to call us brothers and sisters.
• He is the same sympathetic Savior who triumphed over the Devil and who helps us in our temptation.
• He is the same apostle and high priest of our confession who builds the house of salvation in which we live.
• He is the same one who brings us to the throne of his father to find mercy and grace.
• He is the same one who gives the Promised rest for weary sinners.
• He is the same one who is of a priestly order that has no end.
• He is the same priest, holy, harmless, undefiled, made higher than the heavens.
• He is the same one who offers himself as a once for all sacrifice for sins.
• He is the same one in whose blood is your forgiveness of sins.
• He is the same one who brings you not to Mount Sinai and its holy wrath but to Mount Sion and that grand celestial celebration.
• He is the same one who disciplines you because he loves you.
• He is the same one whom saints of old have found to be faithful in life and death.
• He is the same one who is coming and who will fulfill everyone promise to his children.
• He is the same one who endured the hardship of the race but entered into the joy of victory.

He was all of this yesterday – He is all of this today – He will be all of this tomorrow – He will not change – never, ever, will He change – He is the same.

Obsession with Urban Church Planting

Last night I received a tweet and a re-tweet from a conference in Alabama on church planting.  The tweet was from one of the sessions there on church planting and unfortunately tweets have no context in which to interpret them. So, I will discuss the tweet as it is. The tweet was about the speaker’s bewilderment over what he called ‘the urban obsession with church planting when half of the world’s population lives in rural areas.’

In response I tweeted: ‘Urban obsession counteracts a history of rural obsession that neglected half of the world’s peoples.’

My point and the point of any urban church planter is not that we should disregard rural and suburban church planting but that in recent history urban church planting has been a neglected focus of the church and a renewed emphasis on cities is needed.

No one should debate the need of people both in rural and urban areas to hear the gospel of God’s saving grace.  We thank God for every church planter who seeks to invest his life in reaching the lost through church planting wherever that may be.

We make the appeal for urban church planting and are ‘obsessed’ with it only because it makes more sense to us , as I would hope that those in rural church planting have reasons that make sense to them.

Here are some reasons why urban church planting makes sense as a legitimate obsession.

1. Urban church planting makes sense because this appears to be the priority of the first church planting movement under Paul.[1]
2. Urban church planting makes sense because the ‘cultural and intellectual flow’ is more often from cities outward.
3. Urban church planting makes sense because there has been such an exodus of Christians from the cities.
4. Urban church planting makes sense because established churches in the city are dying or have died.
5. Urban church planting makes sense because immigrants from the nations of the world are more often attracted to cities, making ‘disciple the nations’ more accessible.
6. Urban church planting makes sense because 70% of church planting already takes place outside of cities (churchplanting.com).
7. Urban church planting makes sense because it provides a more diverse[2] context to display the reconciling power of the gospel.
8. Urban church planting makes sense because cities contain more of the neglected and disenfranchised people of the world.[3]
9. Urban church planting makes sense because disillusioned, ‘Christianized’ and ‘suburbanized,’ young people are seeking an idolatrous refuge in cities.
10. Urban church planting makes sense because the sheer density and proximity of people makes more possible and pervasive the opportunity to practice the commands to ‘love your neighbor’ and ‘let your light shine among men.”
11. Urban church planting makes sense because some of us simply love density and diversity and the absence of homogeneity.

Those of us doing urban church planting confess our obsession. We believe it is a good and God-honoring investment of lives and that it is so good that we want to persuade other to prayerfully consider the city.

For those of you doing rural and suburban church planting, I hope and pray that you will be so convinced of the value of what you are doing that you will have the kind of holy obsession that attracts others to join you in your worthwhile endeavor for the gospel.

Loving the City?

Urban Ministry and Urban Living often attract those who are infatuated or flirtatious with the mystique of the city and even some who profess to love the city. Some of us simply love the gospel and the density (crowded neighborhoods) and diversity (economic, ethic, educational, cultural, and age differences) of people who are found in the city – offering an opportunity for a strategic advance of the gospel.

We should be cautious about the phrase ‘Loving the city’ because it can be no more than a cliché of those who either do not know the city or those who have come to believe that it is mark of spiritual achievement when you can say, “I love the city.”

To be able to say “I love the city” you need to spend quality time with the city.You do not know the city because you may venture in to Penn Plaza or the Art Museum. Picnicking or playing soccer in Fairmount Park does not make you ‘urban.’  Eating at a nice restaurant in Manayunk or on South Street has not really introduced you to the city. Staying at the Hilton or the Marriot for a weekend does not constitute ‘having experienced the city.’

After you have lived in the city and have become acquainted with the city, you choose carefully when you might say, “I love the city.” I have seen enough of those who come enthusiastically to the city only to leave defeated and hating the city. Without a heart-felt affinity for the density and diversity of people in the city, a commitment to the gospel, and dependence upon God to endure the brokenness of the city, you could easily be driven away because there is so much about the city that could PO[1] any average person.  Here is a beginning PO’ed list:

1. Slum landlords who collect outrageous rents but care nothing for their property or the neighborhood.
2. Slobs – people who litter and trash the city, whether they drive a Mercedes, a Ford, a bicycle, or they walk.
3. A school system that allows students to advance and even graduate knowing that they have not achieved an adequate and competitive level of education.
4. The PPA (Philadelphia Parking Authority), a merciless system that legally harasses the citizens of and visitors to Philadelphia.
5. Non-profits that take tax payer money and look good on paper but only do enough to maintain a semblance of legitimacy.
6. Bureaucrats and politicians whose main occupation in life to keep their jobs or get reelected at any cost.
7. Government funded drug addiction that places people on medication for life and convinces them that they will never be competent enough to live without a government pill or paycheck.
8. Beggars who feign hunger or tell elaborate lies in order to get money for drugs or alcohol.
9. Poor and blighted neighborhoods that are imprisoned in dependency on failing government programs.

There is more, but I’ll stop there. To focus on those things leads to a kind of despair that loses sight of the living hope we have in the gospel.

On the other hand there is much about the city that should generate excitement in most anyone. Here are some of my favorites:

1. A church that begins to reflect the economic, racial, educational, and age diversity of the city and the world.
2. Neighbors whom you actually get to know.
3. Neighborhoods with a diversity of people, coffee shops, restaurants, and more within walking distance.
4. The Art Museum, Water Works, Ben Franklyn Parkway, Kelly Drive, the Philadelphia Zoo, etc.
5. Universities bustling with young people eager to learn and to live.
6. Conversations with people from all over the world.

Frankly, if I forget that I am here to love and reach people for Christ, then there is enough about the city to drive me away or cause me to practice the outdated missionary model of living on a safe compound and only venturing into the city for ministry or sightseeing.

I am living here because I want to know and love the people whom the gospel offers hope — PPA agents, lying beggars, those who have lost any hope of being free from illegal and legal drugs that affect their ability to think, teachers and school workers who are dismayed at the enormity of the task before them, and slum landlords who need forgiveness and a new value system. The gospel of Jesus Christ has power to transform slobs, politicians and bureaucrats,  business leaders and non-profit directors, etc.  I am here not to look with disdain and hatred at the things which PO me, but to hear in them a voice crying for redemption. Of course, it is true that people everywhere need Jesus, but in the city there are more voices crying and more kinds of people in need of redemption. That is why I am here.

So, please do not be mistaken about an attraction to the city that seems like a ‘call’ from God. Let the deeper call of the gospel and the call to love all kinds of people attract you to the city.

If you approach the city like you might a flirtatious, attractive woman, you will soon find that she offers enough to get you interested but without any future for a meaningful relationship.

If you come to the city with infatuation, you will find that the image in your mind to which you have been attracted, does not represent reality.  The outward attractiveness will will soon be overwhelmed  by her harsh inner character that cannot be known casually.

If you come to the city, thinking that you ‘love the city,’ you will soon find enough in her to turn your heart and your stomach or enough to capture you with an idolatrous love that steals your heart from mission.

But, if you love people and love the gospel, and if you are not uncomfortable with density and diversity, then you will find enough people in the city to whom the gospel calls you and enables you to love and offer hope. And, when you love people and the gospel, you will experience grace to handle all those things which PO you and you will grow in thankfulness for the goodness of all those things that excite you, but never allowing them to capture your affections.

So come to the city – not because it is the best place to live  or because you ‘love the city’– come, because it is place where the gospel can touch many people and many different people; come, because it is a place where you will grow in experiencing God’s grace in the midst of a broken world; come, because you will grow to appreciate God’s common grace at work in the many cultures of the city.

Come to the city! And, if you choose not to come, pray for those who do and we will do the same for you, as you love people and the gospel where you are.

Reflections on Suffering (Job 29-30)

Job’s life had radically changed from prosperity to suffering. Job felt like God’s watchcare over him had also changed. He now feels like God is not lighting his path nor being a friend to him. There was a former time when Job remembered that ‘life was good’. He recalled the favor and respect that he had from others because of the apparent ‘blessing of God’ as seen in his prosperous life. Job remembered when his trouble free life allowed him to focus on pursuing the needs of others. He was able to face the despair of others with confidence and a smile.

But now this is all gone. He is mocked by those who see his suffering as a curse from God. The despair that he formerly smiled at now captures his own soul. He now finds himself to be one of the needy whom he used to help. The joys of his life are replaced with deep sorrow.

Job is honest as he relates his feelings about life. He is mistaken in how he views God’s feeling toward him.

The cry of all sufferers is – why God?

Jesus. as the exemplary innocent sufferer, made this cry on the cross, though he knew the answer to the why. God had purposed that his suffering would accomplish redemption.

Job did not immediately know the answer to ‘why’ nor did God ever give him a definitive answer.

God simply taught Job that His goodness and power are infinite and His relationship to Job is not to be gauged by the propserity or suffering that providentially touches the lives of His children.

The inalterable event of the gospel, the unchanging gift of grace assure us in our suffering that “Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today, and forever.”

A Gospel-Centered Way Beyond  Fundamentalism and New Evangelicalism

At Grace Church of Philly, we long for Christian fellowship with other believers  that is based upon gospel essentials. By gospel essentials, we mean those teachings of Scripture which are necessary for one to truly be called a Christian. Those gospel essentials would at least include a belief in the authority and reliability of Scripture, the Trinity, the exclusiveness and sufficiency of the redemptive work of Christ, and the depravity and inability of mankind. Also, included in those gospel essentials would be credible evidence of belief, including at least a maturing, obedient love for God and others, especially love for other believers.

Unfortunately, in the world-wide church of Jesus Christ, Christian fellowship based on gospel essentials has been difficult to achieve. This is evident in the historic divisiveness between the two movements of Fundamentalism and New Evangelicalism.  Neither of these movements today has clear definition or significant influence, but I will use them as an illustration of losing sight of the gospel.

As a young Christian I was introduced to Fundamentalism and thought that anyone who believed the gospel but did not agree with me on other areas of doctrine must have been a New Evangelical. I suppose that many New Evangelicals considered anyone who criticized their openness on some doctrinal matters to be a Fundamentalist.

I can remember the days when John MacArthur and John Piper were considered to be New Evangelicals by Fundamentalists, though it is likely that New Evangelicals considered them both to be Fundamentalists.

This common way of thinking presents a false dilemma in that it offers only two options (Fundamentalism and New Evangelicalism) and requires that you make a choice between the two.

Additionally, not only is there a false dilemma, there is an arbitrary standard of what characterizes a Fundamentalist and a New Evangelical.  From Fundamentalism’s vantage point, one is a New Evangelical and not a Fundamentalist, because they do not practice ‘biblical’ separation from those who do not agree with their full understanding of Scripture. From a New Evangelical’s vantage point, one is a Fundamentalist and not a New Evangelical, because they practice a “non-biblical’ separation from those who differ on various aspects of biblical teaching.  Fundamentalists would say that New Evangelicals practice separation over nothing; New Evangelicals would say that Fundamentalist practice separation over everything.

Rolland D. McCune, a Fundamentalist, alleges that New Evangelicalism’s movement away from ‘true Christianity’ could have been prevented had they practiced ecclesiastical separation. Of course, for fundamentalists, true Christianity includes much more than gospel essentials and true Christianity is lost by granting Christian fellowship to those who do not meet the Fundamentalist standard of  ‘true’ Christianity.

“This comes as no surprise to fundamentalists because the greatest hedge against this corruption by association (1 Cor 15:33) is the practice of ecclesiastical separation. Since the repudiation of this doctrine was probably the chief cornerstone of the new evangelicalism from its inception, the movement had a manifest destiny of deterioration in theology and ambivalence in practice from the beginning. Its antiseparatist obsession left it shorn of the God-appointed means of preserving and propagating true Christianity (DBSJ 8 (Fall 2003): 85–99).”

Along a similar vein, Dr. Harold Ockenga, a New Evangelical who wrote the foreword to Dr. Harold Lindsell’s book, The Battle for the Bible, published in 1976, affirms the anti-separatism of New Evangelicalism:

“Neo-evangelicalism was born in 1948 in connection with a convocation address which I gave in the Civic Auditorium in Pasadena. While reaffirming the theological view of fundamentalism, this address repudiated its ecclesiology and its social theory. The ringing call for a repudiation of separatism and the summons to social involvement received a hearty response from many evangelicals… It differed from fundamentalism in its repudiation of separatism and its determination to engage itself in the theological dialogue of the day. It had a new emphasis upon the application of the gospel to the sociological, political, and economic areas of life.”

New Evangelicalism admittedly refused to allow its theology (including gospel essentials) to determine its ecclesiology.

Is it not possible that both Fundamentalism and New Evangelicalism have a deficient ecclesiology that diminishes the primacy of gospel essentials? McCune argues that the “greatest hedge against this corruption by association is ecclesiastic separation” to preserve what he called ‘true Christianity’ while Ockenga argued that “while reaffirming the theological view of fundamentalism,” New Evangelicalism “repudiated its ecclesiology and its social theory.” Unfortunately, Fundamentalism’s  understanding of ‘true Christianity’ and basis for ecclesiastical separation was often arbitrary, unpredictable, provincial, and beyond gospel-essentials. While, New Evangelicalism was right in rejecting this aberration of separation, their lack of commitment to gospel essentials led them down a path of diluting the true nature of Christianity.

Fundamentalism and New Evangelicalism represent contrasting ecclesiologies of exclusion and inclusion. Fundamentalism has an ecclesiology that defines genuine Christianity in expanded terms including much that has no bearing on gospel essentials (such as eschatological systems, church government, etc), thereby excluding many.  From a Fundamentalist perspective, agreement on all matters of faith and practice is essential and any disagreement is equivalent to disobedience and, consequently, cause for exclusion.  Fundamentalism diminishes the primacy of gospel essentials by elevating other biblical teaching to an equal or greater level.

On the other hand, New Evangelicalism diminishes the primacy of gospel essentials by often expanding Christian fellowship to include those who reject gospel essentials.

My assessment is that if gospel essentials were rightly elevated, Fundamentalists would be more inclusive and New Evangelicals would be more exclusive. If Fundamentalism focused on the primacy of gospel essentials their appreciation of the believing church would grow to include many whom they now reject because of disagreement on non-gospel essentials. If New Evangelicalism focused on the primacy of gospel essentials their appreciation of the church would bring them to exclude those who reject those gospel essentials. Gospel essentials need to determine the parameters of exclusion and inclusion.

Beyond Fundamentalism and its certainty on all matters of theology and New Evangelicalism’s openness to accept most everything, we desire to identify with those individuals and groups who have questioned both the arrogance of Fundamentalism and the tolerance of New Evangelicalism and who seek Christian fellowship based on gospel essentials.

In essentials, unity

In non-essentials, liberty

In all things, charity

Why we use the Apostles’ Creed at Grace Church of Philly

                From time to time I hear concerns from well-meaning people questioning our use of the Apostles’ Creed. Most often it has to do not so much with the content, but with their personal history of having recited it in the Roman Catholic Church or a liberal denominational church.  Part of their conversion story is that in understanding the gospel of salvation by faith alone in Jesus Christ, they left a religious system that had corrupted and confused the gospel. We rejoice with them in their conversion and their choice to leave a faulty religious system.

However, in our use of the Apostles’ Creed and other ancient creeds we are reclaiming from corrupt religious systems what belongs to historic Christianity.  The content of the creed is thoroughly biblical and generally accepted by evangelicals around the world. Though there are some nuances of how one understands ‘he descended into hell,’ most would agree there is a biblical basis for the idea. We choose in our recitation to omit it. Others are offended with the phrase ‘holy catholic church’ because they mistakenly associate ‘catholic’ with Roman Catholic. Actually, catholic is a good word that highlights the universal, worldwide expression of the church of Jesus Christ.  We replace ‘catholic’ with Christian to accommodate some of those sensibilities and misunderstandings.

The creed simply sets forth an ancient, historic representation of the Christian faith. It does not set forth how one becomes a Christian. Yes, it is possible to believe and recite the creed and not be a Christian, just as it is possible to recite the Lord’s Prayer or pray a ‘sinner’s prayer’ and not be a Christian. Nevertheless, the creed is helpful as a catechetical tool for believers but only secondarily as an apologetic tool for unbelievers.  We understand that both believers and unbelievers need more than the creed.

Admittedly, though we recite the creed regularly at Grace Church of Philly, we are not totally satisfied with the creed – not because of what it says but what it does not say.  Had I been on the ‘creed editorial committee,’ I would have made the atoning work of Christ clear. For some reason I was not invited to that committee.  Here at Grace Church of Philly, we are committed to being gospel-centered. The gospel is the good news that Jesus the Redeemer-King has come. At the heart of the good news is ‘Christ died for our sins.’ Since there is no substitutionary atonement in the creed, there is no preaching of the gospel in the creed. That is why I say that the creed is primarily a catechetical tool for believers not an apologetic tool for evangelism.  It is both a personal and corporate confession and a teaching tool for those who already understand and believe the gospel.

In contexts where the gospel has been eviscerated, the Apostles’ Creed is nothing but vain repetition, as is the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer and the singing of “Holy, Holy, Holy” by many Roman Catholics, many Orthodox churches, and all theological liberals. But, in contexts where the saving gospel of Jesus Christ is central, the creed reaffirms elements of the historic Christian faith.  When recited by those whose hearts are being transformed by the gospel, the Apostles’ Creed becomes a hearty, personal and corporate confession of Christian belief, not vain repetition.

The confession which begins with, “I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth …”, is rooted in what we have already confessed and continue to confess” “that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures.”

The  ‘already, not yet’ kingdom of Jesus Christ

1. Already a Kingdom in which the King has accomplished redemption through his death and resurrection; not yet a kingdom in which redemption is consummately applied to all things.
2. Already a Kingdom which one sees and enters through repentance and faith; not yet a kingdom which one sees with the physical eye.
3. Already a spiritual kingdom in which the King rules over the hearts and lives of his subjects, not yet, a geo-political kingdom in which all  the universe is in subjection to His righteous rule.
4. Already a kingdom in which the subjects of the King are learning to love one another and live in unity; not yet a kingdom in which the subjects of the King perfectly love one another and live in unity.
5. Already a kingdom in which its subjects possess a spiritual inheritance; not yet a kingdom in which the subjects are in full enjoyment of the inheritance.
6. Already a kingdom in which its subjects are granted the New Heavens and Earth; not yet a kingdom in which they possess the New Heavens and Earth.
7. Already a kingdom which is advancing over the powers of darkness; not yet a kingdom which is fully triumphant over the powers of darkness.
8. Already a kingdom in which the power of the King over death, disease, and the devil is evident; not yet a kingdom in which death, disease, and the devil are banished forever.
9. Already a kingdom growing mysteriously and gradually (Matt 13); not yet a kingdom manifested in power and glory.

The Congruence of Grace and Discipleship

¹⁰ But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me.

(1Co 15:10 ESV)

I believe in gospel grace.  Free undeserved grace. God’s saving grace. Grace personified in Jesus. Grace that forgives and grace that transforms.

I also believe in gospel discipleship. Costly and demanding discipleship. Obedient discipleship.  Life-altering and life-consuming discipleship. Discipleship that rejoices in suffering. Discipleship that says no to sin and yes to holiness. Discipleship that loves the outward facing mission of God.

I believe in the congruence of grace and discipleship. Grace that gives birth to discipleship. Discipleship that flows from grace. A grace and discipleship that are intimate friends, inseparable companions – one never found without the other.  Bound together they are a missional grace and a missional discipleship – rooted in the gospel.

I see a counterfeit claim to grace. A grace without humility. A grace with an air of self-righteousness. A grace that leaves one in bondage. A grace that tolerates sins. A grace lying stagnant in mediocrity. A grace that knows no discipline and no discipleship.  A religious grace, not a gospel grace.

I also see a counterfeit claim to discipleship.  A discipleship without joy. A burdensome discipleship.  A formulaic discipleship – compelled from without.  A powerless and ineffective discipleship. A discipleship without mission.  A discipleship without gospel grace.

I believe in a gospel grace that matures. Grace that fosters greater humility. Grace that grows in gratitude. Grace that loves and obeys Jesus more. Grace increasingly overwhelming us with the saving goodness of God. Grace undiminished by time. A growing grace fostering a greater discipleship.

I believe in a gospel discipleship that matures.  A discipleship that invests more and sacrifices more for the gospel.  A discipleship growing in love for the church. A discipleship increasingly agonizing for the lost. A discipleship that knows grace, loves grace, reflects grace.

This is the life to which Christ calls us – a life experiencing and growing in the congruence of grace and discipleship, for a life without gospel discipleship is a life without gospel grace and a life without gospel grace is incapable of producing gospel discipleship.

Things I’ve learned on personality, power, friendship, and integrity.

Pastoring for over 30 years has taught me a lot about myself and a lot about other Christian leaders.  I had a friend early on with whom I spent a lot of time discussing ministry. He was like a mentor to me.  By human standards he was a successful pastor with enormous influence. I liked being around his engaging personality and enjoying his favor. As time went on, I suspected that he often played loosely with the truth. Some would even say that he was a pathological liar. Yet, he was my friend and I excused his ‘imperfection’ and overlooked it.  As time moved on and my journey took me down a different theological and philosophical path, our friendship ended and I became the object of his innuendoes.  Looking back, our friendship was not deep for if it had been, I would have confronted him along the way about his lack of integrity and he would have loved me even though I took a different path.  Admittedly, as a young pastor I loved the presence of power and influence too much. Later in life, we pursued friendship again. I had experienced enough disappointment to no longer be enamored with personality and success, and he had suffered enough pain to be humbled.

One day I had a conversation with a fellow pastor who was describing the difference in the way that he and I approached ministry.  He referenced my departure from the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist movement in 1988. At that point in my life, I began to realize that true Christian fellowship was undermined by the separatism and turf-protectionism of much of the IFB movement. Instead of quietly maintaining the status quo, I disclosed to my church what was going on in my life and I informed about 100 of my IFB ‘friends’ that I would no longer practice that form of separatism.  For me it was a matter of integrity. My fellow pastor contrasted my approach with his. He said, “I have chosen to not water the weeds that were sown before me and to let them die slowly.”  He has done that for a long time and the weeds continue to sap the life out of his soul and his ministry. I think that his method is not only a bad approach to gardening, but sets forth an example of pastoring without integrity and must eventually lead to a conflicted conscience.  Looking back, I realize that the weeds I saw in my own ministry could have been yanked out more systematically and gently, but letting them die a slow death should never be the option.  In most gardens, weeds grow more prolifically then flowers and plants. Pull the weeds but be gentle to the plants.

Recently, I had to go out of my way to get a Seminary President’s attention.  After numerous emails and no response, I went to see him and asked why he did not answer my emails. His response was, “Don’t take it personally. I am an equal-opportunity non-responder.”   Should I really believe that the president of a seminary characteristically does not respond to emails? We had breakfast together and what I thought was a movement toward reconciliation and fellowship.  As it turns out, it wasn’t real.  He still does not follow through or answer emails.  I think he really wanted to say, “We empathize with where you are theologically and philosophically, but we have supporters that might be offended by your involvement with the seminary. We must maintain the flow of money at any cost even if that means not living out who we believe God wants us to be.”  My desire for gospel centered fellowship with all believers’ causes me at times to be intentionally naïve, thinking that a common commitment to the gospel should make fellowship possible.  However, I do realize that other agendas trump the gospel in Christian ministry and when that occurs, integrity can be sacrificed. Pursue peace with all men as much as it is possible. It is not always possible.

I have met a few kinds of prevaricators in ministry – those who are cowardly, always protecting their image, and those who are brazen and so intent on accomplishing their agenda that they can spin anything. I have worked with both in leadership. Sometimes there is such sophistication in lying that we must live with the suspicions until the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.  Or sometimes we choose to live with the suspicion because of friendship, personal advantage, need of a skill set, repercussions of exposing the lie, etc.  Forgive me for my guilt in all the above. Most often prevaricators move on to another unsuspecting setting uncorrected and unexposed; others remain so adept at the skill of illusion that they continue to survive where they are.

Though I pursue a life of integrity, I am not without fault. My desire for approval and the idolatry of my agendas can cause me to be silent when I should speak up and can cause me to not say everything that should be said when I do speak up.  At times, I may justify my approach as a matter of ‘wisdom’ when it may just be cowardice or an idolatrous commitment to an agenda.

So, here is what I ask of my friends. Please help to keep me honest. Question me, confront me, pray for me, and encourage me to be a man of integrity.  If you are suspicious, ask; if you think the facts are wrong or misrepresented, tell me; if you think there is more that I should be saying, probe me. I will do the same for you.

Is not this the call of the gospel? –  to live and speak the truth in love.

‘as a matter of fairness’

13 For I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened, but that as a matter of fairness 14 your abundance at the present time should supply their need, so that their abundance may supply your need, that there may be fairness. 15 As it is written, “Whoever gathered much had nothing left over, and whoever gathered little had no lack.”

Is there a biblical call and example for Christians and churches with greater resources to share those resources with people and churches that have need? Has the personal pursuit of the ‘good life’ and the obsession with ‘bigger and better’ in American Christianity not only deterred Christians and churches from their obligation to the poor in general but also caused them to disregard the needs of people and churches in impoverished areas? The answer to both questions is resoundingly, YES!

When you are located on the border of a one of the poorest cities in the country, is raising money to remake your youth room really a legitimate home mission project? When you have a choice with your youth group to spend big bucks on a wilderness adventure or help in an urban mission project, which do you choose? When church growth demands more space, do you think about more bucks and buildings or alternatives that meet the need but share resources with poorer churches?

Perhaps some will say that my musings are driven by envy. I am not immune to that. I have in the past lived and ministered in insulation and isolation from the needy people and churches of this world. I have bought suburban property and built buildings without any regard to the needs of urban churches. Don’t get me wrong. I am not adverse to creature comforts. I enjoy as many of them as I can whenever I can. But, the gospel provokes an inner tension between what I have and what others need. I have not resolved the tension but I do seek theological and practical resolutions to work out this good gospel tension.

Believers and churches in poorer areas are not looking for charity. They are looking for community with and love from others within the church of Jesus Christ. What distinguishes the world’s charitable acts from the churches charitable acts is that the church seeks community with those to whom it gives. Whether it is giving to the poor outside the church or giving to believers and churches, the gospel goal is always community. In our giving to the unchurched poor we seek their inclusion in the family of God and their fellowship at the Lord’s Table. In our giving to poorer believers and churches we seek to demonstrate and advance the loving community which the church of Jesus Christ should model to a watching world.

When more affluent believers and churches disregard the needs of those with less, their self-interest undercuts the promise of the gospel. Our culture tells us that success is measured by how much more we have acquired for ourselves in life; the gospel tells us that success is measured in how much we have given away.

When we have seen and felt the emptiness of building personal and church empires and worldly monuments of success, then our use of what we have will always be in consideration of “do not forget the poor.”

When that happens, affluent Christians will not simply practice ‘arm’s length’ charity but will seek the kind of loving community in which ‘fairness’ is a biblical ideal.

As the gospel strips away our secular values of success, the day will come when more affluent suburban churches are tied to intimate community with urban churches and third world churches in which ‘fairness’ is a growing reflection of the gospel at work.

A Qualified Egalitarianism

1 Peter 3:1 “Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands …”

In the Hellenistic world of the 1^st Century women generally had a submissive role in society. There was little or no sense of egalitarianism – the full equality of men and women in ancient cultures.  A women’s role, not only in relationship to her husband but to men in general, was seen as having lesser value. Paul Achtemeier puts it this way:

Dominant among the elite was the notion that the woman was by nature inferior to the man. Because she lacked the capacity for reason that the male had, she was ruled rather by her emotions, and was as a result given to poor judgment, immorality, intemperance, wickedness, avarice, she was untrustworthy, contentious, and as a result it was her place to obey (Achtemeier 1996, 206).

In footnoting that paragraph, Achtemeier references Plutrach, Seneca, Petronius, Plato, Josephus, Tacitus and others. There were always women in society who resisted this role of blanket subservience, but for the most part this was the plight of woman in the 1^st Century world.

Peter speaks to wives who have become believers in the midst of this world. Along with other believers, these women are called aliens of the dispersion – people who belong to the kingdom of Jesus yet are living in the kingdom of Caesar.

These wives are among those who are chosen of God, with a living hope, and an unearthly joy. They are called to be holy, to live in reverence, and to love the church. They belong to a community of the word, a community of worship, and a community of witness.

How then does the gospel transform the way they live in relationship to their husbands and to other men? What Peter calls believing wives to do is not maintain the status quo but to practice a new willing submission to their own husbands that seeks to glorify God. In emphasizing this submission ‘to your own husbands,’ he also implies a new understanding for all women within societies that denigrate the value of women.

A Christian wife’s view of submission to her husband is transformed by no longer viewing it as an imposition of a society that devalues women but rather as the will of God for her life.  Peter upholds the headship of the husband (whether he is a believer or not). Though he does not argue for this headship, as Paul does, based on creation order, we can assume that Peter held the same view. That is, that submission is not something that is inherently evil; that it existed before the fall, that is modeled within the Trinity’s redemptive roles, and that ultimately the headship of a husband reflects the headship of Christ over His church. A Christian wife’s submission is now her willing choice to glorify God.

Peter furthers implies how the gospel transforms a Christian woman in the midst of society by emphasizing that her role of submission is in regard to her own husband. There is no indication in Peter that a woman is submissive to men in general except in that all believers are to be marked by a spirit of submission. Though Peter (1 Peter 5:1-4) would uphold with other New Testament writers that the household of faith (the church) has male leadership as does the home, his call here for a woman to submit herself to her own husband leads us to believe that Peter accepts not only the male leadership of creation order but the equivalent value and responsibility of male and female in creation order.

In God’s creation order (Gen 1:26-28), male headship was never intended to diminish the fact that women are made in the image of God and that women equally with men are given the mandate to take dominion of the world. This implies the full development of their giftedness and resources in all of life, though in a marriage relationship, there would be deference to a husband’s leadership.

However, we also recognize that the entrance of sin into the world disturbs the good order of creation and that a husband’s headship often becomes abusive and oppressive and a wife may resist and contest her role in submission. We see also how sinful thinking allows society to take a leap from submission in the home >>> to thinking this means women are of lesser value or importance in the home >>> to then thinking that submission of women applies to all areas of life.

The gospel says to Christian wives, “your willing submission to your husband is God’s will for your life.” The gospel also says, “You were made in the image of God to employ alongside of men all of your giftedness in all of life. The gospel seeks to restore in you the dignity and dominion for which God created you.”

Are ‘extended sabbaticals” pastoral examples of how to care for the soul?

Recently a few high profile Christian leaders have taken long sabbaticals from public ministry to give attention to the care of their souls. This is a luxury that most of us in and outside of ministry cannot afford but perhaps one which we all desire from time to time.  However, most of us are caught up in the exigencies of daily life, family, ministry, community, etc. and depend upon the gospel to nurture our souls in the midst of the stresses and challenges of daily life.

If there is a pattern of sin in the lives of these men that disqualifies them from ministry, then I understand the extended sabbatical and would recommend that they get a job and learn to live the Christian life in the midst of the challenges of life outside of ministry.

If there is no disqualifying sin, then is this growing pattern of ‘extended sabbatical’ a pastoral example setting forth the way for everyday Christians to deal with their sin and failures in life? Or has elitism evolved in Christianity in which a privileged few need special treatment to address their superior spiritual needs?

I do not mean to be cynical. The men whom I have in mind are men from whom I have learned much and have been encouraged in my walk with the Lord and my pursuit of faithfulness in ministry. I have read their books, listened to their sermons, and have been encouraged by them to look to the sustaining power of the gospel. I have learned from their careful exegesis and exposition, but now am a bit confused by their pastoral example.  Their approach to dealing with the issues of their lives is one that cannot be followed by many. Paul’s frequent admonitions to follow him as he follows Christ and his exhortations to Timothy to be an example leave me bewildered at the examples of ‘extended sabbaticals’ which cannot be followed by most.

I am a pastor who seeks to follow the Lord faithfully, as I believe these men do. Yet, I know that I follow the Lord imperfectly. I fail my wife and often need forgiveness. I perpetually fall short of being the husband I am called to be; yet I seek grace to pursue that. I fail in my relationships with people and often need forgiveness. I perpetually fall short of the ideal of what a pastor should be, yet I seek grace to pursue it. I know of no area of my life in which I can say I have arrived. But, I am on a journey of growing in grace and knowledge; a journey marked with imperfections; a journey always needing repentance and renewed faith in the gospel.

I cannot follow an example of ‘extended sabbatical.’ It is out of my reach. I need an example of transparency, humility, repentance, forgiveness, and renewed passion, but I need this example displayed in the midst of the challenges of life and ministry.

To my friends in ministry, if you have sinned in such a grievous way to disqualify you from ministry, then resign, repent, and seek restoration. I will love you and pray for you. On the other hand, if the challenges of life and ministry are revealing the imperfections of your character, then show me and those who follow you how the gospel works while facing the everyday challenges of life and ministry.