A few mornings ago was one of the those mornings nobody likes.  Everything is going normal…until you turn the ignition key to get nothing in return but a ticking sound.  Ok, so I don’t know much about cars and had no idea what it could be.  I thought it wasn’t that long ago that I replaced my battery (I can hardly keep track of such things) so I figured it must be something else.  After a few tries, I figured it was time to call AAA.  As I waited, and walked around a bit, one of my neighbors who had been observing the whole thing, approached me and thought he should give me his assessment of the situation.  “It was my starter”, he said affirming that it had to be based on the sound the car was making.  He even had me turn the lights on so that he could see if it was my battery.  Nope, had to be the starter.

Well, that’s just great.  How much is that going to cost? I wondered.  So in response to my neighbors emphatic assessment, I got on the phone with my mechanic to let them know there was a high probability that I would have to have my car towed.  I had them give me an estimate based on this assessment of needing a starter.  Almost $400 bucks!?!?  I was two days away from payday and already had expenses earmarked.  I immediately started re-organizing things in my head to accommodate this unexpected expense.

Finally, the guy from AAA shows up.  Upon hearing the sound that replaced the engine noise, he immediately asserted “it’s your battery”.   I thought surely this AAA battery I got from the last time this happened should not have such a short shelf life.  But I figured that AAA had more credibility than the neighbor, who could only offer an emphatic statement based on his speculation.    I find out from the AAA guy that the battery only lasts a couple of years anyway.   And this is the business of AAA, right?    The guy actually knew what he was talking about.  Sure enough, after locating the receipt I discover that it had been 23 months since the last battery replacement.  Within 15 minutes, I was on the road again.  Whew!

But I think you know where I’m going with this.  It seems to me that this same kind of thing happens in our evangelical circles.  There are many preacher/pastor personalities that make emphatic statements based on speculation.   And the statements sound believable to those who don’t know any better.   Just like my neighbor who probably did have some kind of understanding of cars, these folks may have spent many years reading the bible but it is superficial.  There is not the type of engagement with the text that will accommodate an understanding of the historical or cultural context, authorial intent and correlation with the entire witness of scripture.  This is especially true when the theological method of ascertaining what a passage is communicating is based on a “spiritual” understanding  devoid of the realities of the text’s actual communication.  Turn on the TV and you will see plenty of this.  Unfortunately, that is a small percentage of what actually exists.  I would not be so concerned if I didn’t hear so much perpetuation of speculation.

But what is even more troubling – the number of people who believe such speculation upon hearing it.  After all, isn’t that what I did with the battery situation?  See if I had know more about cars, I probably would not have been so quick to accept what this neighbor said.  And that is the way it works with Christians who, for whatever reason, are not fed a proper diet of biblical literacy and rely on a theological method of experience and what sounds right.  Instead, there is gravitation towards crumbs that can be detached from a reasonable meaning and perpetuated because of this easy belief.   Personally, I am grieved that this happens.  The charismatic (no I don’t mean large “C”) deliverance of dogmatic speculation makes it sound reasonable and true.  Persuasion is a powerful tool especially when backed by large congregations, books and endorsements.

My wish is that pastors/church leaders take seriously the charge to disciple Christians.  That means giving them more than sound bytes and therapeutic remedies with selected proof-texted passages to support whatever claim is being made.   But more importantly, it means making sure their own their own theology is grounded in the historic witness of Christianity and is something more than speculation.  Yes, that means engaging in some type of objective learning experience where ideas and interpretations can be measured against that witness.  I can only hope that would cut down on the level of dogmatic speculation and circumvent erroneous understandings, giving Christians what they need and not just what sounds good.Similar Posts:

• A Need for Higher Learning – Part II
• Yes, We Should Follow ‘Man’…But ‘Man’ With Understanding
• A Matter of Perspective
• The Patsy Called Relativism
• If God Has Stopped Speaking Then Why Do I Still Hear Him?

You know what I hate? I hate when I am corrected by my wife. Especially when she is right! My first tendency is to get defensive. “Michael, do you think you can start trying to spend more quality time with the kids?” (just to throw something completely random out there that I have never actually heard ). “It seems like you have been working a lot lately.” “What?!! I have not. Yes, I have had a lot of projects over the last month or two, but this is necessary to make ends meet. Which is more important: spending time with the kids or making sure they have food?” That is how things often go down when the confrontation is just between me and my wife. My first reaction is to get defensive. Many times I have sat in church and listened to a sermon where I could swear my wife must have called my pastor and given him fodder for the morning. The pastor essentially says the same thing as my wife, but to a more general audience. “The Bible tells us that we need to spend time with our family. Are you working too much? . . .” etc. I can’t tell you how many times this has happened. When it does, I can do nothing other than bow my head and say, “Yes Lord. I hear you.”

I have a hard time listening to the correction of others, especially when the correction is so direct and focused on me and my failings. Quit smirking. You do too. I often have to laugh at my sin nature as I reflect upon it. When someone attacks me personally, I usually won’t listen. When admonishment is given to a general audience in which I happen to reside, I will listen. Why? Because it is less personal. It seems more like God is the one doing the correcting, not the individual. Take this particular post for instance. I am indicting myself here, exposing my personal failings. Why does this come so easily right now? Because I am the one instigating the admission. Rarely do I write a blog of confession right after I have received an email or message of direct criticism (and I get plenty). This is just our nature – our sin nature.

In matters of biblical studies and theology, the ante is raised, especially for those of us who teach. Besides the corrections I receive on this blog, and from other bloggers who feel the need to write their own blogs correcting me, I often get emails from people who see themselves as called by God into the ministry of correction (is that a spiritual gift?). I am amazed at the number of people whom I have never met and who have never contacted me before, who feel ordained to send me a “first contact” of correction. There are people that I, upon seeing their name in my inbox, avoid like the plague. Feelings of dread come at the very sight of their names. Why? Because every time, their communication consists of some sort of criticism. Don’t get me wrong; I am not saying that every time we are corrected individually, we should submit to the correction. Often times the correction is off-base. However, there are those times when the correction is much needed, but the person giving the correction does not wisely consider our sin nature.

Isn’t there a Proverb for this? Hold on…Yep, here it is:

Proverbs 15:1
A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.

Tact. Tact. And, did I mention tact? Oh, wait. Here is another.

Proverbs 12:18
There is one who speaks rashly like the thrusts of a sword, but the tongue of the wise brings healing.

Speaking of correcting those whom you feel are spreading dangerous doctrine:

2 Timothy 2:24
The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition. (emphasis mine)

Concerning those who have fallen into sin:

Galatians 6:1
Brethren, even if a man is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, lest you too be tempted. (emphasis mine)

That “you who are spiritual” qualification discredits my intervention, oh, about sixty percent of the time. The other forty percent of the time I am disqualified by my tone!

And then there is the “apologists’ creed:”

1 Peter 3:15
But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence.

How often do we read the first part, bear up arms, load the guns, and forget about the major qualification: “with gentleness and reverence.” (Not to mention this is to come “to those who ask!”) Again, this is just tact.

Some points to consider when you feel called to the ministry of correction:

• Search for the plank in your own eye (Matt. 7:3). When found, get rid of it. If you can’t get rid of it, stay silent.
• Attacking someone personally when you have never contacted them before is not tactful. You don’t have their audience. You should not expect them to listen.
• Attacking someone personally every time you correspond with them is not wise. I try to live by the 5/1 rule. Five words of encouragement for every one word of correction.
• Publicly condemning someone comes at great expense, not only to the ones who are directly involved, but to those who are introduced to the controversy. Think long and hard before airing your complaint publicly.
• Realize that most of the time, the people you correct are not under your authority. Therefore, you have no right to speak to them as if they are in submission to you. This is a tremendous problem as Christian leaders attempt to use the internet to conduct ministry. It is so easy to write a quick “open letter,” arrogantly supposing that you are something you are not. This can do more damage to the body of Christ than the error your are supposed to be correcting.
• If you are to call someone out publicly, write your statement, then rewrite it ten times. Each time, soften your complaint with more gentleness.
• Remember that the person against whom you are logging your complaint is one who was created in the image of God. Live in fear of this. Follow David who, though he had every reason to start a public campaign against Saul, feared Saul due to his own fear of the Lord. Due to this, he would not lift up his hand against him (1 Samuel 24:6). We need more Davids.
• To the one being corrected: do your best to consider what is being said, even when the correction did not come tactfully.
• To the one who is falsely confronted: forgive the person. Don’t let it eat at you. Forgive them the moment you are hurt. Remember, they are sinners are well. Grace goes both ways.

Rarely do I use this ministry as a platform to call someone out. This is just not the place. Don’t get me wrong. This does not mean I have not often been tempted. In fact, three weeks ago I spent all day working on a 3000-word post which was directed at a theologian whom I believed was taking a serious turn for the worse. I reworked and reworked it. I deleted words and rephrased sentences. I did everything I could to follow the principles I laid out above. When I finished, I read it out loud and asked for feedback from some members of my staff. They were encouraged by it and felt that it was tactful. I waited ten more minutes and then decided to delete it. This is what I told our staff: ”This is just not us. It is not what I want us to be known for. I will let others write these types of things if need be. I don’t care about the traffic it could bring. Let’s continue to do what we do and deal with these things in a more indirect way. It is more tactful and effective anyway.” A day wasted? Yes. But as my mentor Chuck Swindoll would say: “phooey.”

When we follow these principles, not only will we be more biblical, but when a time of stern correction is needed, we will have an audience with the one who needs the correction.Similar Posts:

• Calling in “Spiritually Sick” to Work Today
• Let Ninety-Five Percent Roll off Your Back
• How to Listen in Sunday School
• What if God Read Your Posts? Christian Conduct on the Internet
• What Part of Gentleness and Respect Don’t You We Understand?

This morning, at 5:12am, after a ride on my stationary bike, I was taking a walk through my neighborhood. As often as I do this, I look up to the heavens and speak to God. This morning started out as any regular ol’ morning. There was no reason to think I was going to meet God differently than before. No special prompting to prayer. No sudden wake up in the middle of the night. Just a routine day . . . so I thought.

As I walked up the final hill before coming in view of my house, continuing to pray, something odd happened. I ran through my normal list of things to bring before God. Nothing special happened then. However, I began to pray about something that has been heavy on my heart recently. Without getting into specifics, it was a prayer for a certain person to change. Now, in truth, I do not know whether this person really needs to change. In other words, I am not sure of the Lord’s will with regard to this particular issue. My prayer was basically this: “Lord, please change this person if they are making the wrong decisions.” You see, I happen to believe more than not that this person’s decisions and chosen life path are wrong and potentially destructive on many levels. But it is one of those things. Yes, it could be wrong and destructive, but it could also be an incredible blessing sought out by one who was just trusting the Lord and following his convictions (as the person of whom I speak believes them to be). Anyway, I prayed to the Lord for this person to change and something happened.

You must understand something: I love to pray outside. Though everything in my theology says otherwise, I simply feel as if God is closer when I look into the sky. Perception can go a long way in prayer, as many of you know. When the sky is clear and the moon and stars are shinning bright, I perceive myself to be more in the presence of God than at any other time. My prayers feel like they are more productive. I feel as if I have a red phone hotline to my Father. Simply put, it is hard for me to feel forsaken when I pray outside. And this morning was no different.

However, as I came up the hill and began to pray for the Lord to change the mind of this certain person, suddenly the sky went dark. No, not literally. But had the sky actually gone dark, it would have had the same effect on the way I felt at this moment. It was as if my phone call to the Lord suddenly got disconnected. I thought nothing of it at first, but as I continued to pray this same prayer, the perception remained. It was as if God was not listening to this particular prayer. So I began to pray about the prayer itself. “Lord, are you trying to tell me something? You know I am trying to be more open to this type of communication – this prophecy stuff.” Interestingly enough, when I prayed this prayer, the heavens opened back up. The dropped call was instantly reestablished. So I tried the previous prayer again, “Lord, please change the heart of this person.” Once again, the call was immediately dropped. The heavens, as C.S. Lewis would put it, were brass.

Was the Lord telling me something through this prayer? Was he telling me that I needed to let this one go? Better yet, was the Lord telling me this person was on the right path and my own opinion, that he was wrong, was in error? It certainly could be interpreted in such a way.

However, as many of you know, for better or for worse, it is not like me to think this way. In fact, I believe over-interpreting experiences such as this one is very dangerous and, ironically, as destructive as that which I was praying about (what the man was involved in). Therefore, I followed the path of Gideon. You know: the guy in Judges 6 who was called by God to deliver Israel? It’s an interesting story. When he was called to this path of deliverance he timidly asked the Lord for an evident sign (just in case he was misunderstanding things). He told the Lord to make a fleece wet with dew overnight, while the grass surrounding it stayed dry. When this happened, he asked the Lord, even more timidly and with more requests for forgiveness, to give him one more sign. This time he asked for the overnight dew to fall on the grass and not the fleece. The Lord obliged, and Gideon moved forward with God’s plan.

My feelings of a disconnected call were not enough for me to change my thinking about this very important issue. It would be crazy for me to interpret life and truth with nothing more than a “feeling” of the Lord’s disapproval. So I said to the Lord, “Forgive me. But your word and truth are too precious to me to let this one experience change my thinking. There is nothing in the Bible to give me definite guidence here. Therefore, if you have indeed come down from heaven and intervened in my emotional well-being during this prayer in a miraculous way, so as to make the heavens close, may I ask you to do something else for me?” My iPad was on my stationary bike in my garage. As I searched for my own “fleece,” my thoughts went directly to it. I don’t know why, but I was compelled to ask the Lord to do something miraculous with it. I had been reading my “through the Bible” reading plan this morning before my walk and prayer. I was not sure if I had closed the Bible program out or not. So I asked the Lord to do something I could not deny. “Lord, if you are truly attempting to communicate to me about this issue the way this feeling can be interpreted, please see that I am protecting your name in my life by asking for a more direct and evident sign. Therefore, when I come back into my garage, let my iPad be open (not locked as it usually is when idle).” I know, I know . . . that is easy. Just hang with me. There is more to the prayer. “Let my iPad be open to the book Saving Darwin.“Why did I choose that book? I don’t know. It was the first thing that came to my mind. I had not read it in a long time so it seemed enough to be a valid sign. But there is still more, “Lord, let it not only be open, but let it be open to page 134.” Why 134? Again, I don’t know. That is just what came out.

I got to my garage and with great anticipation looked at my iPad. And you know what? The screen was dark. It was not open as I had requested. However, I thought that perhaps the Lord did not understand me about making it “unlocked” (after all, is the Lord up on such technology?). So I opened it to see if the requested book on Kindle was open. Guess what? . . . It wasn’t.

Not what you expected? I am sorry for the letdown. But I think there is an important lesson here.

I had a feeling this morning. I could have let it stand on its own. I could have based something that I believe upon such a feeling, something very important that the Bible was not clear on. However, this would have been very irresponsible. The volatility of emotions and feelings is, well . . . volatile. They come and go. They are easily and frequently misinterpreted. I can’t just believe, adjust, and change my views on things simply because I feel like the heavens closed during my prayer. Who am I to feel my way to truth? Am I not fallen? Is my heart not desperately wicked? Are my ways (feelings) always to be interpreted as the Lord’s ways (feelings)?

I have nothing against feelings. I have nothing against emotions. I believe the Lord often uses these in our lives. But when we let feelings rule our lives, no matter how profound they might be in the moment, destruction and misery are soon to follow. Soon we will be making pivotal decisions based upon feelings alone (“I just don’t feel like the Lord wants us to stay married”). Soon we will be adjusting our theology, with feelings being in the driver’s seat (“I don’t feel forgiven by God” or “I don’t feel like the Lord would allow people to go to hell for eternity”). Soon we will be making unwarranted accusations due to these feelings (“I have a deep down feeling that you are having an affair”). Soon feelings will sit control just about everything. Soon, we who think we are following the Lord due to these feelings, will be far away from him because we are not more jealous for the word of the Lord than we are for our feelings. The Lord is not going to come down upon you for asking for a more substantial sign than a feeling. When I read the account of Gideon, I get no sense that the Lord was displeased with him for asking for two evident signs.

Judges 6:36-39
Gideon said to God, “If you will save Israel by my hand as you have promised— 37 look, I will place a wool fleece on the threshing floor. If there is dew only on the fleece and all the ground is dry, then I will know that you will save Israel by my hand, as you said.” 38 And that is what happened. Gideon rose early the next day; he squeezed the fleece and wrung out the dew—a bowlful of water. 39 Then Gideon said to God, “Do not be angry with me. Let me make just one more request. Allow me one more test with the fleece, but this time make the fleece dry and let the ground be covered with dew.” 40 That night God did so. Only the fleece was dry; all the ground was covered with dew.

Notice: Gideon was already promised something from the Lord. Yet he needed more. All this talk about “doubting Thomas”, how does Gideon get a pass? But he needed more than whatever he already had and the Lord provided. Why? Because God is that big. He can do some amazing stuff.

Feelings are wonderful. Emotions are persuasive. Therefore, we need to keep them in check, harnessing them into subjection to reality. The Lord is not going to reprimand you for not bowing to your emotions every time the sky goes dark. In fact, he is more likely to reprimand you for doing just that.

Did the “darkness” mean anything? I don’t know. But I have not adjusted my thinking about this issue with my friend. I still am not sure whether his decisions are right or wrong, though I lean toward the wrong. The experience of not having an experience did not definitely condemn him! Nor should it. I will continue to pray the way I prayed before about the situation.

Please note: I have included this post in the category of “doubt”, “depression”, and ”losing faith” because this is where these type of things inevitably lead.Similar Posts:

• Looking For Peace in All the Wrong Places
• Are You a Misfit in the Church?
• Uncle, Lord!
• A Theology of More III: Worship
• How to Listen in Sunday School

1. Women in ministry

2. Creation/Evolution issues

3. Calvinism/Arminianism stuff

I would put them in that order too. Talk about these topics, and be prepared for a divided crowed. Blog one of these issues and get ready for the comments section to explode. Take a stand on one of these and prepare yourself to be assigned with some nasty label. Stay away from these issue and live long and prosper . . . or something like that.

As controversial as these topics are, I have also found that there is one greater than all of these. It is not necessarily in the area of systematic theology. It would fit better in practical theology. While those referenced above may get one’s blood boiling in the heat of the battle, there is one that has a greater more sustained and nuanced effect upon our disposition. I would call it “ecclesiology” (the doctrine of the church), but I think that such an academic designation would detract from its broader appeal. Simply put, it is How we do church.

I make it a habit to take breaks from my local assembly and visit other churches that are not of my ilk. Sometimes it is just a one time visit. Other times it is for an extended stay. (Some people are shifting in their seat right now, others have quit reading.) Sometimes it is a church with a “high” liturgy. Others it is at a church that would say “litur-what?” I do this for self-preservation. I do this for spiritual edification. I do this for ecclesiastical exercise. Most of all, I do this so that I can have grace.

I believe that one of the greatest grace killers that we can have in our lives is an overly critical spirit about other churches.

I was having lunch with a pastor not too long ago who only wanted to talk about another church in the area. His opinions about the way they do church were not favorable. Though he had never been to this church, he had heard enough. His church was a “Bible-centered Church for believers.” Their church was a “Seeker driven church for unbelievers.” In his opinion, they were too fast and loose with their accommodations to the world. They were trying to build bridges to the lost, but now they had taken on the identity of the bridges, not the Kingdom to where the bridge was supposed to lead. Though the Gospel was preached, it was only milk that they offered. In his opinion, they should have a “Meat unavailable” sign out front.

I was reading another local pastor who was going off about another pastor in the area. This time it was just the opposite. This guy led a “seeker” church (which essentially means that more than fifty-percent of the intentionality of the main church service is based on getting the lost saved). He came down hard on the other pastor because he was referencing Greek and Hebrew during his message. “The church is not a seminary,” he said. He emphasized that this will do nothing but produce high and mighty arrogant Christians, and will run the rest off.

The main point that both of these pastors expressed was that their church was the one right way to do church (or at least much more right than the other). Veer just a bit from their sanctified methodology and hands are no longer held in the missio dei.

I used to be this way. Let me rephrase: I am this way, but I am in recovery.

“Hi, my name is Michael and I am a Church critic.”

“Hi Michael.” 

My approach to evaluating churches is becoming quite simple. I am starting to be able to appreciate just about any church where the Bible is being taught and the Gospel proclaimed. There can be all kinds of things I would do different. There can be all kinds of weaknesses in other areas. But when I find a church where the word of God is consistently proclaimed, more often than not, I find the power of God. When I visit a church where the Bible is respected as the final authority, I find those who are on the same mission as I. When I find a church where people are led to the Gospel, I find myself among brothers and sisters. Most importantly, when I find a church where the Bible is believed, I am surprised. It is a rare treat these days. 

Sometimes we go to churches and think:

“Maybe the Bible is being taught, but it is not expositional. God is only slightly here.”

“Maybe it is expositional, but the music is compromisingly loud. God cannot exist in such chaos.”

“Maybe the Gospel is strongly proclaimed, but people don’t know what to do next. God is waiting for them to get to step two.”

“Maybe there is good discipleship, but the Gospel is not clearly proclaimed each week with an alter call. God does not appreciate the snub.”

“Maybe people open their Bible’s here, but they use the Message. God does not like the Message.”

“Maybe these people know doctrine, but I never see them at the downtown mission. God does not like inlets with no outlets.”

On and on we could go. Yes, we could do this about your church too. I promise.

I have to train myself continually to appreciate the methodology that others are using. I have to train myself to recognize God’s presence in any number of situations. I have to remember that the Bible does not give too many “hows” of doing church.

Today I sat at a certain worship service of a church I do not normally attend and saw so many things that I could criticize, come down upon, and get worked up over. Here and there I had to stop myself. At my best moments I knew, as the Bible was being taught, that I was at the house of brothers and sisters. I knew that God works in spite of all our methodologies. I know that we are all traditionalists at heart. There is no one perfect way to do church. But there is a way to kill grace. And if grace has died, what have we got?

How do we become children with regard to our criticism of other churches? How do we unmake our beds of methodological triumph? Who’s victory are we proclaiming when we look down on other Bible believing churches? Why are we so territorially inclined?

“Hi, my name is Michael and I am a critic of Church methodology.”

“Hi Michael.” 

Don’t get me wrong. I have a particular way in which I would conduct a church. A bit more traditional than some. A bit more progressive than others. Neither high-church nor low-church. But my way is not the right way. It is not necessarily even more right than another. It is just my way, with its relative strengths and weaknesses. I am glad God gave us this freedom. I think it is why the church can shape itself in every culture and in every period of history.

In my opinion, to say that there is a “biblical liturgy” or a biblical way of doing church is about as unbiblical as we can be. It is a grace killer. And in the end, it is not the Spirit of God you are quenching in that church, it is the Spirit of God in you.Similar Posts:

• In Defense of Seeker Churches
• Should the Church Seek for Miracles Signs?
• It is Foolish to Continue to Have Evangelistic Crusades in our Postmodern World
• Why Do I (A Calvinist) Go to An Arminian Church?
• A Call for a Diversified Pastorate

As important as it is for us to reveal the “cracks” when selling our car it is infinitely more important for us to be up front about the cracks in our lives to others. Chuck Swindoll told a story on his blog the other day. Early in his ministry he was looking for the “keys to success” and sought the advice of a man he admired very much:

“How do you do it, Jim?” I asked him. “Tell me the secret of ministering to people.” I expected him to say, “Always set the pace,” or, “Be strong no matter what,” or, “Model the truth, and stand against the adversary as he attacks you.” I got none of that. Jim just smiled in his inimitable, casual way and answered, “Chuck, let people see the cracks in your life, and you’ll be able to minister to them.”

That’s it. That’s the distilled essence of all he told me.

As we left their cabin that cool evening, I felt somewhat like the deflated, rich young ruler, who had just asked Jesus how to inherit eternal life (Mark 10:17). Like Jesus’s surprising answer to the ruler, Jim’s reply was not what I expected. Frankly, it convicted me. I was looking to minister from my strengths. Jim challenged me to serve in weakness.  He made that statement to me over fifty years ago, and it remains one of the greatest lessons I have learned in ministry. I have never forgotten it.

I immediately related that to theology. I look out across the spectrum of all those I admire, all those I read every day, all those I listen to, and find myself coming back to those who have cracks. They write the books I read a second time (or just get through the first time!). They record the sermons I listen to again and again. They are the ones who are real. I can relate to them. Why? Because I have cracks.

None of us have it all figured out. Sure, we have some success stories that can wow the listeners. Yes, we have some convictions that are set in cement. But we also have cracks. We have a lot that confuses us. We have skeletons in our theological closet. We have doubts that we don’t allow to surface. We have experiences that don’t quite add up. Many times we are walking on the tight rope of life with the weight of pain and hope sharing space on the balancing pole and sometimes pain wins the day. These are cracks. 

Just once I would like to see someone conceded a debate. Just once! (Or at least a point in debate.) Just once I want to see someone give themselves as the negative illustration—the “what not to do.” Just once I would like to see a testimony of someone who loves the Lord that is not concluded with a nice red bow. Sometimes we are still a mess. But we have our image to keep up. And, sometimes, we can get caught up into thinking that image is more important than truth. The sell is more important than integrity. But when push comes to shove cracked people will not listen to uncracked people very long. And believe me, they know. Sooner or later people will start looking for someone more like them.

I talked to a pastor the other day who shared with me in confidence a terrible emotional trial he went through last year. I had no idea. I had to pry it out of him. But as I sat and listened to his story, for the first time in a long time I felt as if he knew pain, discouragement, and doubt the way I had. For the first time, he became real. And you know what, his stature and authority did not diminish a bit. It actually rose five or six notches.

He told me that he had never told anyone but his wife. I asked him why not. He said he did not want to discourage his  people. But you know what? They are already discouraged. They are not looking to you for perfection, but for hope. There is a lot more to be said for a person who has battle wounds (yes, even open battle wounds) and is still fighting than for the one who has none.

Showing cracks is really the only way to be real. Whether it is in your life or in your theology, don’t be afraid to let them see your cracks. If you don’t have them, then you are not in the battle. It’s that simple.Similar Posts:

• Swindoll on Self-Control
• Married to the Ministry? Why Jim Left the Ministry and Faith
• 16 Considerations About Entering the Ministry
• "God Comes Before My Wife" . . . And Other Stupid Statements
• Why I am Not Fit for Ministry

I graduated from Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS) in 2001 with my ThM. I had a double major in New Testament and in Pastoral Ministries. The pastoral ministries department is concerned with practical hands-on training such as the teaching process, leadership development, and counseling. I even had to take a course in the use of media (which came down to how to create a proper PowerPoint presentation). They were all great courses which I often return to for sage advice.

However, the gem of the pastoral ministries department at DTS was the preaching courses. There were a lot of things to fear at seminary (not the least of which was Dan Wallace’s Advanced Greek Grammar course), but nothing more so than the day you had to give you sermon in front of the students and the professor. After your “masterpiece” was delivered, you had to sit through the critique of students (who were just as green as you) and a professor (who was paid to find out what you did wrong). The professor would share how you fell on your face with the whole class using you as an object lesson! Many of us would pray for the rapture just before the critique began.

Above all else, when you graduated from DTS, you were a man who preached (or a woman who “shared”) the word of God. No, not your own thoughts. Not your weekend story about how camping trips can go bad. Not four illustrations from the Bible about how to have a godly marriage. Not even your conversion story. But you were prepared to “preach the word.” We did not preach from the word. We did simply use the word in our preaching. We did not illustrate using the Bible. We preached the word.

Expositional Preaching vs. Topical Preaching

You have not heard about this debate? Come on . . . Let me introduce you to a debate that rivals the number of dispensations, the five points of Calvinism, and, yea, even the six days of creation.

Expositional preaching: preaching through the word of God, verse by verse.

Topical preaching: using God’s word as a springboard to preach on relevant topics.

(You can see the bias of my training coming through here).

Topical preaching focused on the felt needs of the church while expositional preaching let the word of God determine the needs. How is that for another jaundiced comparison? But, hey, I am a DTS product. What do you expect? How about some Martyn Lloyd Jones to get my back?

“One advantage in preaching through a book of the Bible… is that it compels us to face every single statement, come what may, and stand before it, and look at it, and allow it to speak to us. Indeed it is interesting to observe that not infrequently certain well-known Bible teachers never face certain Epistles at all in their expositions because there are difficulties which they are resolved to avoid.”

In truth, while I am not on any mission against topical preaching (for I do taste of its sweetness every once in a while), I am an advocate of expositional preaching. While very few have ever dared to implement true comprehensive expositional preaching (how of us preach through Leviticus or Numbers?), it does allow the Bible to determine the needs of the audience. Preaching the “whole council” of the word of God does compel us to come head to head with many issues that we would otherwise skip over due to confusion, seeming irrelevance, and controversy.

In other words, I agree, promote, and defend a ministry defined primarily by expositional preaching.

However, expositional preaching is not enough. As much as those of my ilk like to take pride in our stance of staying true to the word of God, we need to recognize that expositional preaching is only a small element of the educational program of the church. Alone, yes, it is better, in my opinion, for the Christian disciple to sit under expositional preaching rather than topical preaching. But lets get real: on a scale of 1-10, it moves us from a 3 to a 5.

I have seen Christians who have sat under expositional preaching all their lives and not been able to answer basic questions such as How did we get our Bible? Why do you have sixty-six books in the Scripture? What are the essentials of the faith? How do you know the Christ story is not myth? Why are there so many different Christian traditions? And (ironically) Why do you believe in expositional preaching? To which they respond “expo-what?”

It is not “expositional” that is at fault, it is “preaching.” Really, what I am saying is that preaching is not enough.

I love to preach. Arguably, I love to preach more than I love to teach. Yes, there is a difference. Yes, there needs to be. I do not wish the pulpit to turn into the lectern anymore than I wish the lectern to turn into the pulpit. Preaching has a prophetic aura about it that teaching does not. Preaching is more about conviction than it is about education. People go to a sermon to hear how they are to change their lives. People go to a classroom to be challenged to change their minds. In the sermon, people learn how to behave. In teaching, people learn how to think. Preaching is about establishing people in truth. Teaching is about challenging people in truth. Yes, there is always going to be some teaching in preaching as there is always going to be some preaching in teaching. But they are not the same and they should not be combined. The church needs to have both.

However, in my experience, I have found a famine of good teaching in many of the most revered expositional churches. Many expositional churches’ pews are filled with people who have been indoctrinated for years through good preaching with no avenue to challenge their beliefs in such a way to make them established. Their beliefs remain planted in good soil, but the soil is only an inch deep. When they go to the university and finally have their minds challenged through education, they are forced to choose between the education and critical thinking of the university and the years of sermons whose assumptions have been left unchallenged for over a decade. The teachings of the church are demoted to a sort of deuterocanonical (second-canon) status to the protocanonical (first-canon) status of the university. And you know what eventually wins?

The consequence for the church is alarming. In a recent study about American spirituality 22 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds claimed no religion (up from 11 percent in 1990). Most importantly, this study found that 73 percent of those that claimed no religion came from religious homes (often reared expositional preaching Evangelical churches). Sixty-six percent of these were described as “de-converts” (source). Drew Dyck identifies a major factor of leaving the church as intellectual challenges faced after they have entered these formative years (source).

But I don’t need these studies to tell me that churches suffer from a lack of intellectual engagement of their minds. I face this fact every day through encounters with those who are desperately seeking to hold on to their faith while scratching their head during expositional sermons. They are created by God to be critical, but often God’s people won’t allow such. There needs to be a place where tough questions can be asked, their faith can be challenged, and their minds can be engaged at a whole different level than the expositional sermon affords.

Those who are from traditions like mine who pride themselves in their preaching style are to be commended much for their commitment to the word of God (I don’t mean to undermine this at all), but they need to seriously consider if expositional preaching is really enough. Truth needs to be preached and taught. The two work together if they work at all.Similar Posts:

• Grace Killer #1: “Biblical” Ways of Doing Church?
• The Problem of Evil, Suffering, and Pain
• The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind Sixteen Years Later
• "I Was Going to Preach this, but the Holy Spirit Led Me to This" . . . And other Stupid Statements
• Transparency

The other day I was listening to a radio program. The speaker is someone who is very popular in Evangelical apologetics. He is someone that I have learned a lot from and whom I respect a great deal. However, he propagated something that I think is a very poor apologetic response to questions for which the individual does not have answers. It goes like this:

Apologist teacher: “We need to be ready to give an answer for our faith.”

Student: “But I am scared. What if someone asks a question that I don’t have an answer for.”

Apologist teacher: “Don’t be scared. It is okay if you don’t know. Don’t feel bad about your lack of knowledge. You just need to remedy it. Tell them that it is a good question and that you will go find the answer and get back with them about it.”

However, I find this sort of carte blanc response disturbing and quite demeaning.

I am not saying that it could not be a good answer in certain circumstances for certain questions. But when it comes to our defense of the faith we had better be more prepared and more reflective. What do I mean by this?

Think about it. Let’s put this in a particular situation. You are an enthusiastic Christian who believes deeply in the Gospel. You are talking to a co-worker about Christ one day. They begin to tell you about why they don’t believe in God. The crux of their issue is the problem of evil. “How could a good God allow evil?” That is their question. You respond, “I don’t know. Good question. I will research this some and get back to you next week.”

What you have just done here is illegitimized your faith to this person. As well, you have diminished the seriousness of the question and the person asking it. To this person, your faith is carried even though you have not dealt with one of the most serious theological questions that anyone can ask. You have just told the person, “Hmmm…Good question. Never thought of that.” Once this person (who obviously does think deeply) recognizes that you have not personally wrestled with this issue, they will see your faith as shallow and fake. By essentially saying, “I have never thought of that,” you have just lost your representation.

Not only this, but you have also belittled the person by demeaning the question. How did you demean the question? By not engaging it, but simply saying “I will get the answer and come back.” Quick fix, eh? How do you know you will get the answer? Is it really that easy? Is it as simple as “getting the answer and coming back.” You are saying to this person, “I know that this is the main reason why you reject God. You may think you are a smart chap, but you are not that smart since I can simply go get the answer and come back in no time!”

I am not saying that we have to have an answer for everything. But this is the point: Most pop apologetics today are concerned with good Evangelical cliché answers. It is not about engaging the issue. It is not about wrestling with problems. It is about “getting the answer and coming back.” Sometimes there will be good answers. Other times there will be many legitimate options. Still, other times there will be no answers, just an understanding of the difficulty.

This is why Christian discipleship of the mind is so important. We need to show others that we are not disqualified due to intellectual shallowness. We need to have wrestled with the issue ourselves. We need to show them that we understand the problems not simply because we have read a question/answer book on the subject, but because we have been in the same place and asked the same questions. We have engaged and wrestled with the question personally. Therefore our answer comes from the depth of who we are, even if the answer is “I don’t know.”

Another example: Think about this. You are witnessing to someone and telling them about Scripture as God’s word. They begin to inquire about the contents of Scripture saying, “So many people have different books in their Bibles. How do you know that the books you use are the right ones?” You say, “Good question, I will get back to you on that.” Say what? You have not even wrestled with a foundational question such as this? How real can your faith actually be? That is what is going through their mind.

Or, how about this: They ask you how you know historically that Jesus rose from the grave and it is not just a Christian myth. You respond, “Good question. I am going to find out and get back to you on this.” You are going to find out how you know Jesus rose from the grave? You are going to find out how you know Jesus rose from the grave?? You are going to find out how you know Jesus rose from the grave???? You, a Christian, are going to go (future tense) to find out why you believe the central element to the Christian faith is true? And you expect this person to follow you?

This comes in all areas of theology. As a Calvinist (one who believes in unconditional predestination) I am often asked many questions about why God did not choose everyone. I don’t have an answer for this. It disturbs me too. But this is not from lack of studying or reflection. I know all the options. I have spend many a night dealing with this with the Lord. Hoever, I don’t have a good answer. But I do have an informed answer: “I don’t know.” Sometimes an informed I don’t know is better than an unreflective text book answer. Why? Because it legitimizes the question (and the one asking) and legitimizes your faith. You have shown that you are a real person, not a theological bot. Theological bots are simply concerned with the “right” answer to everything, not the struggle and the depth that accompanies true belief.

We are not theological bots. God wants us to love him with all our understanding. But our discipleship process must engage issues truly. We need to avoid surface level shallow defenses of our faith. They do more harm than good. And, remember, on some issues, informed agnosticism is the best and most effective position to have.Similar Posts:

• Are We Theological Bots?
• Welcome to the world of agnostics
• The Parable of the Life Preserver
• Questions I Hope No One Asks: Why Doesn’t God Save Everyone?
• “What if I Missed Something?”

During my Principles of Biblical Teaching course, I tell my students to be careful not to always set themselves up as the hero. When giving an illustration on how a certain principle should be carried out, sparingly use personal stories where you are the one who triumphs. In fact, I tell them, more often than not, when you are illustrating failure, use yourself if you can. This not only adds dimension to your character, it also lets people know you are real.  Don’t be like the old preacher who told his congregation, “I am going to preach today on humility, and might I say that it is the best sermon I have ever read.”

One of the Christian’s most beloved passages in all the Bible is Romans 7:14-25. This is where Paul lets his failures shine through. Listen to this:

“For we know that the Law is spiritual; but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. 15 For that which I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. 16 But if I do the very thing I do not wish to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that it is good. 17 So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which indwells me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the wishing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. 19 For the good that I wish, I do not do; but I practice the very evil that I do not wish. 20 But if I am doing the very thing I do not wish, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. 21 I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wishes to do good. 22 For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, 23 but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind, and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin. (Rom 7:14-25)

What a wonderfully transparent passage! Why do we love it so? We love it precisely because we can so identify with it. “Hey Paul, I am a wretch too! Thanks for identifying with me.”

The entire Bible is filled with the successes and failures of so many. The Bible is transparent about the human condition. Why do we feel such a burden to dress ourselves up so nicely and hide our sin? Adam ate the apple. Noah got drunk. Abraham gave his wife to a national leader for self preservation. Lot found fellowship with debauchery and loved it. David took another man’s wife and killed him to hide his sin. Peter denied that he even knew Christ. John fell down and worshiped an angel. Transparency at its best.

Reasons why we are scared of transparency:

Fear of rejection: “Its all about me. If I let others know about this or that struggle, what will they think about me. They will reject me and all that I say.”

But it is not about you. It is about God. We already know you have issues. Your issues have issue. You are a sinner just like us. We are not going to reject you for exposing what we already really know. In fact, you will gain our respect and have our ear more so than if you were not transparent. We don’t really trust people who don’t show some cracks here and there.

It might sterilize my message. “I will turn into a hypocrite. If I let people know about this problem, then I won’t be able to preach, teach, or encourage its opposite with conviction.”

This evidences a very misguided philosophy of preaching. When you preach, you are first preaching God’s word, not yours. Of course you are struggling with these issues. Of course this passage is speaking to you. If you are not willing to apply the message to your own life and let it convict you, then you are a hypocrite. But you are not one if you struggle with sin.

I don’t struggle with sin that much. “I don’t really think that I am that bad. In fact, I am a pretty good chap. I have never committed adultery. I have never murdered. I don’t curse. I even eat right for goodness sake. Therefore, I have every right to preach and teach others to avoid sin.”

You are in denial. You have yet to come to realize how sinful you really are. You have not grasped how deep sin really is. Normally, this comes from the more legalistic type who have a veneer of righteousness, following by the letter of the law. This type of person needs to be broken. Until you can say “Have mercy on me, the sinner,” I don’t think you are qualified to preach the word of God.

Transparency makes light of sin. “Wearing your failure on your sleeve only encourages people to follow in the same failure. ‘Well, so-and-so struggles with this sin; therefore, it must not be that bad.’ That is the reaction you will get. Sin is too serious to be flippant about. Give people this excuse and how will we be able to curb their sin?”

You know what? Sometimes this can be the case. The problem is that people with this attitude are the ones who don’t like Paul’s transparency. In fact, for this very reason, many want to say that Paul, in Romans 7, is speaking of his former state of sin, before he was a follower of Christ. In my opinion, that torches the passage and Paul’s argument. Paul is being transparent. He is telling us that he often does the very thing he hates. The solutions is in chapter 8, but that is not what this post is about. Your job is not to manipulate the truth, putting on a veneer of righteousness, in order to keep people from sinning. That is the job of the Holy Spirit.

Transparency need not make light of sin either. So long as you are revealing your struggle with the sin, not a complacency toward it, you will encourage people to enter into the same struggle.

Where transparency goes sour:

Fake transparency. I have seen fake transparency. It is not pretty. Its not pretty at all. In these situations, all people want to do is identify with others. Therefore, they not only use themselves as the bad illustration all the time, but they overdress it. They act like they are mad at God so that their audience feels better. They pretend to struggle with something that they really don’t struggle with. They act ignorant about a subject that they are very familiar with. They attempt to identify with issues that they really don’t identify with. It comes across as sloppy and weak. This is not what transparency is all about.

Overdone transparency. Sometimes, people get a taste of the reward of transparency, and then go overboard. There is a balance here. Wisdom, discernment, and tact are all very important. There are certain things you reveal in private and certain things you reveal in public. Don’t throw-up all over people just for the sake of identity. Pray about what to reveal. Despite the spirit of this post, some things are better left unsaid in many contexts.

Crass transparency. Refine what you say. Be delicate. Be somewhat timid in the way you reveal yourself. Be sensitive to the audience. There is a local preacher near me that does not follow this principle at all. He talks about sex, covering details that are better left unsaid. This is not transparency, but a tactless attempt to be current with the insensitivity of the world concerning certain things.

Don’t forget that we do need heroes. We need those people out there who have triumphed. We need illustrations of success just as much as failure. I don’t advocate always hiding your strengths. Sometimes I have seen people who seek so much to identify with others, that they shroud their strengths. Being transparent does not mean that you have to look like a dope in everything. People will look up to you for both your strengths and your weaknesses. People will see your strengths eventually. You don’t have to put them on display, but you don’t need to shroud them in shame either.

Be real. That is all I am saying. Transparency is something that God has already displayed in the Scriptures. He did not hide human failure. There is no reason for us to either. Be transparent, but do so with great wisdom. Take the cue from Brett Favre and let us not take ourselves too serioiusly here. Be real.Similar Posts:

• "I Was Going to Preach this, but the Holy Spirit Led Me to This" . . . And other Stupid Statements
• The Gospel is Not Just for Beginners
• On Authenticity, Condemnation and Community
• Sometimes Faith Does Take Faith
• If You Are an Atheist, Don't Talk to Me!

I have thought through quite a bit what an “ideal” church looks like. You know the old saying, “once you find the perfect church, you better leave since your presence makes it no longer perfect” . . . or something like that.

No, I am not talking about the “perfect” church. There is no such thing. Ideal. That is the key. How would it be structured? How often would you take the Lord’s supper? Liturgy? Type of preaching? All of these are great questions. But I want to talk only about one here today. Maybe we will follow this up with other issues, but let’s focus now on my (loosely held) opinion concerning the pastorate:

Michael, what would your pastoral staff look like theologically? Calvinistic? Premillenial? Memorialist Lord’s supper?

No, none of these. I would propose a call for a somewhat theologically diversified group of pastors.  I would not only allow for freedom in many areas of theology, but I would intentionally attempt to build a diversified staff, many of whom would disagree with me on issues about which I have very, very strong opinions.

I would have to distinguish between those issues upon which I have strong opinions and those which I am convicted are necessary for the proper functioning of the local church.

Non-negotiables:

• Belief in the central elements of the Gospel: The person and work of Christ (who he is and what he has done).
• Belief in sola Scriptura: Scripture alone is the final and only infallible authority for the Christian.
• Belief in sola fide: Faith is the only instrumental cause (from a human standpoint) that brings about justification (i.e., no works-based salvation).
• Belief in the future coming of Christ: i.e., cannot be a Preterist.
• Must be formally trained in Bible and theology (sorry, no online stuff).

(Oh, and then there is the 1 Tim requirements, but that goes without saying here).

Pretty Evangelical Protestant so far.

Some areas I might seek diversity in:

• I would want an Arminian on my staff.
• I would seek someone who has a different eschatology.
• I may seek someone who disagrees about infant/adult baptism.
• I would seek someone who is more liturgical (high church) than me.
• I would allow for someone who has a different view of creation (i.e., young earth/old earth) as long as they were not militant about it or too self-assured about their position (Don’t turn the comments into this debate again!)

Okay, those are some good representative doctrines that give you an idea of what I am talking about.

Why would I seek such diversity? A few reasons:

1. It would better represent the broad tradition of Evangelicalism. I don’t believe that there is a good or compelling reason to separate locally (i.e., with extensive traditional doctrinal statements) when we don’t separate  conceptually as Evangelicals.

2. It would be didactically (educationally) beneficial for the congregation. I want to illustrate to all the people, young and old, how Christianity is built around key central beliefs (I am a centralist!). I want to demonstrate how Christians can disagree meaningfully and strongly on certain issues, but still serve the same God together in a united purpose. I would even do special sessions/sermons where I and another pastor defend our positions. Then we would hug. (Well, shake hands.)

3. It is a better presentation to the world of our unity. The outside world needs to see such focus. It would, in my opinion, charge the Gospel with the power of its message as the message could no longer be obscured in secondary issues.

Of course, there are some things that are negotiable that cannot be demonstrated in the same way. For example, I may have someone on my staff who is a congregationalist, but the church would not be congregational.

In the end, it is my proposal that churches should be intentionally diversified in their pastorate.Similar Posts:

• How Theologically Diverse Should Your Church Be?
• A Press Release to Evangelicalism
• Why Do I (A Calvinist) Go to An Arminian Church?
• Why I Teach (and Blog) the Way I Do
• Calling in “Spiritually Sick” to Work Today

To be clear, what I am referring to ranges from women’s role in leadership in a complementarian paradigm to full blown support for egalitarianism and everywhere in between.  I am referring to research that specifically addresses to what extent a woman can exercise authority over a man, if at all, and participate in ministry leadership.

So what’s my beef with gender issues?  I know I might get into a bit of hot water with the ladies for this one.  Maybe it’s just me and this is only an opinion, but I think it undermines the legitimacy of female scholarship, particularly in fields where issues are secondary.  I am not saying that Biblical theology of women, and particularly women in leadership should not be explored, but there is something about effort being exerted to promote a cause that can be perceived as self-beneficial.  And especially where the sword of gender issues is optional and research efforts can be focused on other topics.  It might be subtly or not so subtly saying, ‘I’m here and demand that you take me serious.’

I am NOT saying that is the motive behind such a platform but I can’t help but wonder if that is the ultimate impact.  I can’t help but wonder if the perception of self-promotion can be self-defeating, and perhaps undermine the premise that such scholarship aims to promote.

Yes, somebody has to research them.  To be honest, I appreciate the men that take up the cause for gender issues.  I think far too many men, particularly in more conservative evangelical circles, are prone to lethargic study and easy dismissal of understanding a woman’s place in leadership.  After all, why should they be concerned?  But for the ones who do, I think it does give a little more credibility to the issue because it is no longer perceived as a woman trying to insert herself where some believe, she should not be inserted.  Again, I am not saying that those who take up the cause with their research interest and literary publication are doing this, but perception can say a lot.

Why do I have concerns?   While I maintain an active complementarian perspective regarding male headship in the home and church, I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that it is not as neatly packaged as the more conservative platforms would espouse.  I don’t believe I will ever accept the abolition of an authoritative order, aka, egalitarianism.  But I do believe there is ample room, in present day context, for women to legitimately hold leadership roles more than some segments within conservative evangelic circles are willing to accept.  I say this not in support of my own ambition, but as a student of Scriptures that seeks to honestly digest what the whole counsel of Scripture would say on a topic.  This also involves evaluating what is contextualized versus commanded.

Yet, there have been solid lines drawn in the sand.  For those that hold to #1-4 in Michael’s chart (here), I think there is the expectation that women will rebel and possibly construed as outward defiance against God’s authority.  A smart, capable, degreed and well-read woman taking up the cause against restrictive views most likely support this expectation.  Moreover, for the stricter conservative branches of evangelicals with low incentive to investigate issues further, I can’t help but wonder if the cause of scholarship in the area of gender issues would not be construed as further motivation for strengthening those lines.

Regardless of one’s position in the complementarian/egalitarian debate, perhaps the best support for the legitimacy of female leadership is demonstrating scholarship in a variety of disciplines within theological study.  Rather than concentrating research on why women can hold leadership positions or to what extent women can hold leadership position, perhaps the greatest proof would be in the pudding of demonstrated capability and meaningful contributions in all areas in the body of Christ.  I know this can mean various things depending on ones position, (whether a woman can pastor, for example) but the argument of the position is not really the point here nor is this post in support of one position vs. the other.   The point is that if there is a place for women in leadership, it might be better to demonstrate leadership in that area rather than proving why you should.

So getting back to my search, I came across Dr. Karen Jobes, a professor of New Testament study at Wheaton College.   No gender studies, only research involving the LXX and New Testament exegesis.  And her commentary on 1 Peter is bar none, where she also gives props to her husband for modeling Ephesians 5.  I do not know much more about Dr. Jobes than is written here but am eager to learn more.  I would like to believe there are others like her, who quietly work out their giftings for expedient contribution to the body of Christ amongst the din of gender promoters.  I am likely to take Dr. Jobes a little more serious because of it.Similar Posts:

• Men and Women: What they like and don’t like—and why it matters
• Male/Female Equality: A Plea for Honesty
• Why Women Cannot Be Head Pastors
• A Question for Egalitarians . . .
• Do I Allow a Woman to Teach Men?