Recently, Kevin DeYoung, a pastor, author and leader in The Gospel Coalition, posted at TGC’s site on the 9 marks of healthy biblical complementarianism, and today I will respond to his points in italics  — left in their original context and you can go to the link to see the original post and the comments there. I found his post in tone entirely acceptable but theologically inadequate. You can read his piece consecutively below by ignoring my italicized responses.

Kevin DeYoung at TGC

In the conservative evangelical circles I mainly inhabit, there is almost no controversy about whether the Bible allows for women to be ordained as pastors and elders. The people I talk to and listen to are firmly convinced complementarians. That is, they (we) believe that God created men and women equal in worth and dignity but with different roles in the home and in the church. At least very least, this means the office of pastor or elder is to be filled by qualified men. The core of complementarianism is not up for discussion.

DeYoung’s circles could be improved with some expansion to interact with those with other thoughts and points of view. In his understanding of complementarianism it is unjust to represent complementarianism in terms of only worth and roles, for those roles are shaped by hierarchy in those same circles. It is not hard to argue that hierarchy determines roles. Complementarianism, as understood by complementarians, entails patriarchy and hierarchy, not just worth and roles.

To say the “office” is to be “filled” by “qualified men” is to extrapolate from but not state what is in the Bible. The Bible never ever — not once — says only males can be pastors and never says only males can be elders (bishops, too, I assume). The elder list assumes they are males; that is not the same as teaching it. It also assumes deacons are males but Phoebe, a woman, is a deacon. Reverse the logic and one could say women could be elders/bishops.

How we talk about complementarianism is.

Agreed.

And how we practice complementarianism too.

I agree even more so.

Is the problem that we lack courage or that we are missing compassion? Have we gotten too soft? Or have we gotten too restrictive? Does complementarianism need a re-branding, a reformation, a revival, or a retrieval?

The conversations can be pointed, the rhetoric heated. And yet, the fact that there is an intra-complementarian discussion taking place is a sign of the relative success of the movement. The complementarian camp is large enough to contain a fairly disparate group of people and personalities. The presence of disagreements and the need for definitions should come as no surprise. Sharpening is not a problem, so long as we are not unnecessarily sharp with each other.

Let’s hear a description of these debates. 

So what does a health[y] complementarianism look like? I certainly don’t have the last work on the subject. But here are nine important marks.

1. Creation not accommodation. The differences between men and women are rooted in divine design. This is clear from 1 Timothy 2 and from Genesis 1-2. Complementarianism is not about Paul accommodating to a patriarchal first century culture, let alone about us accommodating the expectations of our cultures inside or outside the church. God has something to say about manhood and womanhood. And what God has to say is rooted in what he designed.

Evidently it is “clear” to him and others that Gen 1-2, where not one word is said along this line and themes of even equality are affirmed, teaches a “difference” that pertains to roles in leadership, and there is absolutely no consensus on 1 Tim 2 in spite of what he says. It is not fair to the many fronts of the discussion to say “clear” about anything in 1 Tim 2.

Noticeably absent here is the most significant text in the Bible about manhood and womanhood — the Song of Solomon.

2. Function not simply ordination. The first point may seem obvious, like Complementarianism 101, but it’s an important foundation for this second point. If men and women are different by creational design, then we can’t simply quarantine “ordination” and say that manhood and womanhood have no bearing on church ministry or church roles so long as the pastors and elders are men. The issue is not mainly titles or labels or the laying on of hands. The issue is about function. To be sure, complementarians may not agree on where to draw all the lines concerning home groups and Sunday school classes and public worship, but as a starting place for these discussions we have to remember we are talking about the flourishing of divine design, not adhering to a set of narrow and seemingly arbitrary rules.

DeYoung’s point is that we cannot get to ordination until we know the function of men and the function of women. He contends those functions are shaped by divine design and seen in Gen 1-2 and in 1 Tim 2. This seems reasonable to me, but one has to establish these functions on the basis of exegesis, not assertion. What “function” does he have in mind? It seems it means men lead and women don’t. That’s not in Gen 1-2. 

Ordination is not taught anywhere in the Bible, at least as I understand ordination. What he must mean is that women are not called by God into teaching ministries — which flatly disagrees with the Bible. Priscilla and Junia and Huldah. Or he means they cannot lead — which flatly contradicts what the Bible says. Deborah is all that needs to be said. DeYoung fails here to embrace the sufficient examples of women in the Bible who speak God’s word to the nation as prophets and to women like Deborah and Huldah, Priscilla and Junia. He reads Gen 1-2 and 1 Tim 2 in a way, then, that seems to deny other parts of the Bible. 

3. Warmly embraced not quickly checked off. There’s a difference between affirming complementarianism as an act of intellectual throat clearing—“Look, I don’t think women should be pastors either, but…”—and joyfully affirming the vision as good and beautiful and best.

Yes there is. This needs to be done far more than it is. Where was this warmth with Mahaney and Ruth Tucker?

4. Convictional not merely traditional. There’s also a difference between a thoughtful complementarianism based on the exegesis and application of Scripture and a clumsy complementarianism that is little more than the default position of an overly prescriptive cultural traditionalism.

Examples. Of course this true. Straw man. Who thinks it is the “default position of an overly prescriptive cultural traditionalism”?

5. Tender not triumphalistic. No doubt, sometimes the troops need to be rallied. In the sexual insanity of our day, the call to courage is surely appropriate. But we need to realize that all kinds of people can be listening in as we talk about biblical manhood and womanhood. Some of those listening are wavering and some are wolves, but some are hurt and some resonate with broken hearts more than with raised banners. We need to be on guard against rhetoric that is all caps all the time. Let us be persuaders, not just pugilists.

More of this, more of this.

6. Principial not personal. It’s human nature: we personalize when we listen and universalize when we speak. Because we’ve gone toe to toe with liberals, we think battle mode is the way to go, always. Or because we’ve had a bad pastor or a brutish boyfriend, we are always slamming the complementarianism we say we believe in. Don’t size up the whole complementarian universe based on a couple of your most painful experiences.

Yes it is principial, and the principials are taught in the Bible, and we disagree at the deepest level here. Genesis 1-2, where is Song of Solomon, where is sacrificial love for the other in Eph 5, where is mutual submission/service? 

Yet, the personal is never divorce-able from the principial. When they are it becomes ideology. God revealed himself in his Son, who is very personal and not just principial.

7. Bible and theology affirming not wife and motherhood belittling. We want the women in our churches to read the Bible, study the Bible, and help others understand the Bible. I love that the women at URC are eager to go deep, get good theology, and challenge their hearts and minds. Yes and Amen to women who study the Scriptures. Go ahead and talk about Deuteronomy as well as diapers. And yet, let’s not ridicule the women for talking about diapers! For most women, at some point in their lives, and often for most of their lives, their identity (after being a child of God created in God’s image) will be bound up in being a wife and especially a mother. Moving deeper into the word does not mean moving away from Titus 2.

Again, why these passages and not others?

And let’s not stereotype women into “diapers.” The fathers I know all changed diapers. I spoke this weekend in Austin TX with a woman who has three PhDs — Deuteronomy, diapors, and doctorates. Speaking of the use of “diapers” here… he goes on to urge complementarians to do otherwise:

8. Careful with words not careless. We all use labels. It’s hard to speak of our immeasurably complicated world without them. But if we use negative sounding isms, let’s explain what we mean by them. Let’s not casually label others as “feminist,” “liberal,” “patriarchal,” or “hierarchical,” unless the situation clearly calls for it and we make clear what we mean. A church that has women read the sermon text (a practice I’m not in favor of) is not automatically wed to the spirit of the age, nor is a church which only allows men to teach classes and lead small groups necessarily oppressive and Neanderthal.

Yes. I agree on terms. But these terms are not simply labels; these are often accurate descriptors and DeYoung uses one thoughtfully the whole time through: complementarian. Implying that those on the other side are not complementarian. 

One more: “A church that has women read the sermon text (a practice I’m not in favor of) ..” This must refer to the public reading of Scripture, and he says he’s not in favor of  women reading the Bible in public — and surely he means in Sunday morning worship services. In the Bible women could not just read the Bible they could be prophets — which means they uttered the very word of God in its first occasion; I have a hard time thinking a woman should not read Mary’s song. 

9. Leaning against the culture instead of into the culture. The core convictions of complementarianism will not magically seep into our children or into our churches. The cultural breeze is blowing too stiffly against us. Biblical manhood and womanhood must be taught as well as caught. When it comes to the goodness of God’s divine design for men and women, unless we are pushing forward against the forces of sports and media and politics and business and entertainment, we will end up drifting in wrong direction.

I find this to be a case of what the classical rhetoricians call “insinuatio” — insinuating that those of the mutualist or egalitarian are leaning “into” culture when fantastic arguments have shown that complementarianism is 1950s white suburban American ideology. 

I remember years ago hearing a pastor describe his position on homosexuality as theologically conservative and socially progressive. I could tell by the way he was speaking that everything in him was leaning with the wind. He was holding on to orthodoxy by a thin string. So I wasn’t surprised a few years later when he announced the he had changed his mind on homosexuality and now saw nothing wrong with same-sex sexual relationships. In the same way, we must be careful that our complementarianism is deep, thoughtful, rooted, biblical, and utterly at home with being despised, misunderstood, and counter-cultural. Faithfulness does not mean making as many enemies as possible, but it does mean that for the sake of the good, the true, and the beautiful, we are fine with facing opposition when it is impossible to avoid.

Now some more questions:

How can he talk about the relationship of men and women and completely ignore Song of Solomon? Why do complementarians do this so often? 

How can he talk about men and women, from the family into church, and not talk about the most important word in the entire discussion: love? 

Why is there in this such a concentration on authority lines and roles? Is that not the language game of complementarians? Where is the “blessed alliance” language of Carolyn and Frank James? Womanhood is about ezer-hood, the strong warrior-hood of the woman with the man who go to war against evil with one another.

Why is there nothing here about the Spirit of God and gifts and God’s enablement and — yes — grace, for that is what God does and God gives: grace prompts “gifts” (charis prompts charismata)? Church service teaching and church leading come from God’s Spirit enabling people. Not a word. 

Now my biggest problem with the entire piece: Isn’t Jesus the Lord of the church, the crucified Lord the head of the church? Why is there no christological focus in this piece?

So, no christology, no pneumatology and a whole lot of manhood. Sounds like this piece has not only leaned into culture, it has lost his way in culture. The culture of the 1950s, suburban, white.

And no eschatology: where is the kingdom of God here? the incursion of God’s reign in Christ, anticipating in the now the kingdom of God, anticipating the visions of Rev 21-22 and Gal 3:28 and Col 3:11?

Chris Castaldo was raised on Long Island, New York where he worked full-time in the Catholic Church. Chris previously served as a pastor at College Church of Wheaton and then as Director of the Ministry of Gospel Renewal at Wheaton College. He is now Lead Pastor at New Covenant Church in Naperville, Illinois.

The following interview revolves around Castaldo’s latest book, Talking with Catholics about the Gospel.

David George Moore, also a former Roman Catholic, conducted the interview. Dave’s recent post on “Why I am not a Catholic” can be found here:

Moore: Your title uses “with” not “to” Catholics. Tell us a bit why you chose that way to describe the title.

Castaldo: It is common for books on Catholicism (written by evangelical Protestants) to convey an unkind attitude. The doctrinal emphasis of such works is commendable, but the irritable tone rings hollow and fails to exhibit the kindness of Jesus. It is the sort of tone that my seminary professor warned against when he said, “Don’t preach and write as though you have just swallowed embalming fluid. As Christ imparts redemptive love, so should his followers.” This love is communicated in the content of God’s message and also in its manner of presentation. Therefore, our engagements with Catholics must express genuine courtesy, even in disagreement.

Moore: You’ve written in the area of Roman Catholic theology before. What was the impetus for writing this book?

Castaldo: My previous book, Holy Ground: Walking with Jesus as a Former Catholic, was concerned with helping ex-Catholics to assess our experience of conversion from doctrinal and sociological points of view. Such reflection sought to illumine areas of difficulty (e.g., how are we dealing with patterns of injurious religious guilt?). It also attempted to shed light on challenges and opportunities connected with sharing the good news of Christ among our Catholic friends and loved ones. The new book—Talking with Catholics about the Gospel—however, was not written with reference to former Catholics. It makes no assumptions about an individual’s knowledge of Roman Catholicism (which is why, for example, it has a chapter on Roman Catholic history from the Reformation to the present in order to be a sort of primer), providing the basic information one needs to clearly communicate the gospel among Catholics.

Moore: You give three broad categories of Catholics: traditional, Evangelical, and cultural. Some Evangelicals will be surprised to see the moniker “Evangelical.” What are a few of the biggest misconceptions Evangelical Protestants have about Evangelical Catholics?

Castaldo: At the beginning of his award-winning book, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, Mark Noll famously quipped, “The Scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind.” In like manner, many evangelical Protestants in my pond would like to assert that there is little substance to the term “Evangelical Catholic.” According to this viewpoint, the essence of the “evangel” is the doctrine of justification by faith alone, which Catholics repudiate, thus putting them in a category other than “evangelical.”

Having conducted my doctoral research on the doctrine of justification, I appreciate the above perspective. It is true; the ultimate basis of our acceptance before God (i.e., justification) is different from what Catholics understand it to be. The Catholic view grounds divine righteousness in a person as opposed to locating it squarely in forensic righteousness for a person (as Protestants believe). However, in contemporary Catholicism—at least in the Midwest portion of the United States—I know several Catholics who possess convictions that are evangelical in nature. For example, they attribute salvation to grace alone. They read Scripture as the most authoritative norm for Christian faith. They will even use the language of “faith alone” (as did Pope Benedict) to highlight that forgiveness is a gift of God. Are such positions perfectly consistent with the Catechism of the Catholic Church? I’m not convinced they always are. Nevertheless, in view of the growing number of Catholics who hold these positions, I am comfortable recognizing their evangelical orientation.

In the book, I unpack the characteristics of men and women who identify as evangelical Catholics. I won’t reiterate them here beyond what I’ve already mentioned, but I will share a good example of what it looks like in action—a dialogue between my friend, Brett Salkeld, a very bright Catholic systematic theologian who identifies himself as an “evangelical Catholic,” and Jeff Greenman, another friend of mine who is the President of Regent College, Vancouver. They are helpful examples of the sort of warm-hearted and doctrinally rigorous exchange of which we need more.

Moore: When we seek to understand the official Catholic teaching on salvation it can be a bit frustrating and confusing. I know this firsthand! Would you recommend the statements in the Catholic Catechism as the most representative?

Castaldo: Absolutely. And there is an online version of the Catechism that allows you to perform word searches. There is no longer an excuse for confusion about what the Catholic Church teaches (although understanding what exactly they mean by what they teach and how it find application may sometimes involve a measure of ambiguity).

Moore: Related to the previous two questions is the portrayal of the Roman Catholic, especially as they position themselves against the Protestant tradition. Catholics tend to portray their church as monolithic, when the feet on the ground reality is a broad, rambling landscape.   Granted, we Protestants have our thousands of denominations, but Catholics have de facto denominations. Unpack some of this diversity within the church and why many Catholics are hesitant to concede it exists.

Castaldo: When I consider this question, I think of a statement from the book Holyland USA written by Catholic author Peter Feuerherd. Here is how he captures the varied and complex shape of Catholicism:

In reality, Catholicism includes those with disparate authority and opinions about almost everything under the sun. There are liberal bishops and conservative bishops. The pope sometimes differs with his own Curia. American Catholic voters are regularly viewed by experts as a crucial swing group in every national election, too diffuse to truly categorize. In fact, some scholars of religion refer to Catholicism as the Hinduism of Christianity, because it is infused with so many different schools of prayer, ritual and perspective, much like the native and diverse religions of India now referred to under the single rubric of Hinduism.[1]

Peter’s point is important to keep in mind when we discuss the diversity of Catholicism. It is easy to see the common clerical attire of priests, the standard liturgical order of the Mass, and hierarchical structure that unifies parishes and conclude that there is general unity in the Catholic Church. Not quite. Just like in Protestantism, there are progressives and conservatives, charismatics and stoics, feminists and male elitists, postmodern relativists, liberation theologians, traditionalists, mystics, and everything in between.

Moore: What are a few things you would like readers to gain from reading your book?

Castaldo: I hope readers will understand at least three things. I want them to gain an understanding of what the Catholic Church teaches concerning religious authority and salvation, at least on a basic level. I’d also like them to understand the different types of Catholic people in America today: the traditional, the evangelical, and the cultural. Finally, I want them to embrace their calling to embody the grace and truth of Jesus (John 1:14) in reference to Roman Catholics.

In my role as a pastor, I often observe how personalities lean toward one or the other poles, grace or truth. Some of us naturally resemble lambs; others are more like pit bulls. That’s life in a world full of uniquely created people. Consequently, we shouldn’t be surprised when we disagree on how to handle specific issues; but such disagreement shouldn’t undermine the enterprise of trying to thoughtfully navigate through our differences. Although we must agree to disagree in some places, courteous dialogue is a much more Christian approach than throwing polemical hand grenades over the ecclesial fence. They will know we are Christians by our love.

[1] Feuerherd, Peter. Holyland USA: A Catholic Ride Through America’s Evangelical Landscape. (New York: The Crossroad Publishing, 2006), 72

Carolyn Custis James (Go to the link to read the full article.)

There is no togetherness for the gospel when the victim stands alone.”
—James Kessler

The recent 2016 Together for the Gospel (T4G) conference in Louisville, Kentucky put on public display one of the biggest complementarian manhood failures in recent history. Not only did the leaders of this all-male organization refuse to stand by their masculinity manifesto—that “real men” are the protectors of women and children—these men circled the wagons and protected a man.

Despite many protests and appeals, T4G leaders spotlighted CJ Mahaney as a plenary speaker before an audience of 10,000. Mahaney, one of T4G’s founding members, has been living under a cloud ever since he was implicated in lawsuits alleging systemic leadership cover-ups of sexual abuse in Sovereign Grace Ministries (SGM). The lawsuit never made it to court—not because the charges from eleven plaintiffs were dropped or proven invalid, but because the statute of limitations for the sexual abuse of children in the state of Maryland ran out.

The scandal implicating Mahaney for knowing and neglecting to act on behalf of sexually abused children within his ministry (there have been convictions and prison sentences) remains an active issue in the judicial system. Mahaney (founder and former president of SGM) denies any knowledge of abuses or participation in cover-ups, although he’s still named in pending court cases. His denials—even if true—don’t change the fact that the abuses and the cover-ups took place under his watch. Besides, denials fall woefully short of the urgent, uncompromising response such a profoundly serious matter demands.

If it wasn’t bad enough for a pastor—still embroiled in an unresolved sexual abuse and cover-up scandal—to be a featured plenary speaker at T4G 2016, the cavalier way Al Mohler, Mahaney’s close friend and one of his prominent male defenders, chose to introduce him went beyond the pale.

Mohler, President of Southern Seminary in Louisville, offered a glowing tribute of his friend. He followed that endorsement by insensitively brushing up dismissively against the sexual abuse/cover-up scandal. He even evoked laughter from a predominantly male audience of 10,000 by saying “I told CJ that in getting ready to introduce him I decided I would Google to see if there was anything on the Internet about him.” He then yielded the podium to Mahaney who preached on the sufferings of Job.

One might think the topic of Job’s innocent suffering provided Mahaney with a perfect opportunity to address the innocent suffering of abuse victims both inside and outside the church and to reach out with remorse and compassion.

Instead, he focused on the suffering of pastors.

… Needless to say, the Internet exploded with outranged protests over Mohler’s hurtful words and Mahaney’s prominence—none more fiercely than what came from one of their own—PCA pastor, James Kessler:

“Look no one really wants to hear this, certainly not the 10,000 dutifully nodding through CJ Mahaney’s sermon . . . not the men standing on the stage with CJ, who have chosen an unconscionable loyalty to a friend and encouraged him to take the horns of the pulpit to preach and to rip apart the wounds of so many abused under his watch. . . . No one wants to hear about it, and I suppose that is their luxury because they are not the wounded, they are not the abused who were told to forgive and not to call the police. They are not plagued by nightmares, they are more fully functional if not more fully human. That hardness is their luxury, but it is privilege taxed from the bent backs of the humiliated, it is an arrogance woven from bruised reeds. . . . This is of course, nothing new. This abuse is decades old, but the new thing is the whitewash.”

That whitewash smacks of a whole new layer of cover-up and comes with devastating consequences—especially, but not only, for those who have suffered abuse.

How likely will it be for abuse victims to come forward, tell their stories, and seek help from the church when their ordeal is a matter of levity among the very men who (according to their own standard) should be the first to protect them?

How likely is it that the men who follow T4G’s lead will educate themselves about issues of abuse and avoid the impulse to cover-up?

How likely are they to report alleged offenders to law enforcement and seek professional help in ministering to abuse victims?

How, before a watching world, have T4G leaders cast yet another shadow over Christians who don’t share their views, but who care passionately for those who suffer and are actively engaged in acts of compassion and justice?

… The manhood that went missing at the T4G 2016 was the manhood Jesus embodies. He shielded the vulnerable, spoke truth to power, opposed abusers and their allies, valued and benefitted from the minds and ministries of women, and rejected the muscular power that the world admires and cherishes. Although Jesus was always a sufferer, his focus was on alleviating the suffering of others. This is the gospel—the call to put the interests of others ahead of ourselves. It reflects the fact that Jesus’ kingdom, according to his own definition, is not of this world.

Kevin Giles, an Australian, has served as an Anglican parish minister for over forty years. He has been publishing on the substantial equality of the sexes since 1975 and is a foundation member of CBE International. He holds a doctorate in New Testament studies and has published books on the church, church health, ministry in the apostolic age, the Book of Acts, gender equality and the Trinity, besides numerous scholarly and popular articles.

This is part one, by Kevin Giles

Complementarians are absolutely convinced that what they teach on the man-woman relationship is what the Bible teaches. To reject their teaching is to reject the Bible, and because the Bible is literally God’s words, to reject that teaching is to disobey God himself. After giving a lecture outlining CBE’s position, one Sydney theologian told me publicly, “You reject what Scripture plainly teaches. Those who disobey God go to hell.”

When faced with such weighty opposition, it is helpful to note that we find exactly the same dogmatic, vehement opinion voiced by the best of Reformed theologians in support of slavery in the 19th century and Apartheid in the 20th century. They too appealed to the Bible with enormous confidence, claiming that it unambiguously supported slavery and Apartheid.

However today, virtually all evangelicals believe they were mistaken in their understanding of the Bible, that the Bible condemns slavery and Apartheid, and that these things are not pleasing to God!

In Part 1 of this series, we will examine the biblical case for slavery. In Part 2, we will explore the biblical case for Apartheid and compare the complementarian position.

Slavery

In the 19th century, the best Reformed theologians in America gave their able minds to perfecting a “biblical theology” in support of slavery. They defiantly set themselves against the human liberation abolition represented. Those who made the greatest contribution in support of slavery were the best evangelical and Reformed theologians and scholars of the day.

The Biblical Case in Summary

Slavery Established

“The curse on Ham” (Gen. 9:20-27) was thought to be the divinely-given basis for slavery.[1] The Genesis text tells us that when Noah woke from a drunken stupor to discover one of his sons, Ham, had seen him naked, he cursed him saying, “a slave of slaves shall you be to your brothers” (Gen 9:25). Ham was taken as the father of the African race, Shem the father of the Semites, and Japheth the father of the white race.

Slavery Practiced

The fact that all the patriarchs had slaves was judged as greatly significant. Abraham, “the friend of God” and “the father of the faithful,” brought slaves from Haran (Gen. 12:50), armed slaves born in his own house (Gen. 14:14), included them in his property list (Gen.12:16, 24:35-36), and willed them to his son Isaac (Gen. 26:13-14). What is more, Scripture says “God blessed Abraham” by multiplying his slaves (Gen. 24:35).

In Abraham’s household, Sarah was set over the slave, Hagar. The angel tells her, “return to your mistress and submit to her” (Gen. 16:9).[2] Joshua took slaves (Josh. 9:23), as did David (2 Sam. 8:2, 6) and Solomon (1 Kings 9:20-21). Likewise, Job, whom the Bible calls “blameless and upright,” was “a great slaveholder.”[3]

If these godly men held servants in bondage, it was impossible to consider slave-holding a sin. To argue otherwise was the sin. A.B. Bledsoe said the “sin of appalling magnitude” was not slave-holding but the claim by the abolitionists that slave-holding was a sin. To suggest such a thing was “an aggravated crime against God.”[4]

Slavery Sanctioned and Regulated By the Moral Law

The fact that slavery is twice mentioned in the Ten Commandments (the 4th and 10th) was thought to reveal the mind of God. The ceremonial law, they agreed, was temporary, but not the moral law. They said that the existence of this legislation indicated that God approved of slavery. The sanctioning of slavery in the law was a fundamental element of the biblical case for slavery.

Proponents of slavery argued that the specific apostolic commands to slaves to accept their lot in life were not simply practical advice to slaves living in the first century, but that they were timeless, transcultural directives predicated on the moral law.

Slavery Accepted By Jesus

The Gospels do not record a single word by Jesus that could be read to explicitly endorse slavery, a point the abolitionists were quick to note. But his silence, rather than being a criticism of slavery, the southern evangelicals argued, showed that he approved of slavery. Thornton Stringfellow sums up the case thus:

I affirm then, first (and no man denies) that Jesus has not abolished slavery by prohibitory command: and second, I affirm, he has introduced no new moral principle which can work its destruction, under the Gospel dispensation: and the principle relied on for this purposes is a fundamental principle of the Mosaic law, under which slavery was instituted by Jehovah himself.[5]

Slavery is Endorsed By the Apostles

If the Gospels do not say anything explicit about slavery, it is different in the epistles. In no less than seven passages, the apostles demand that slaves accept their lot in life, often adding that masters should treat their slaves kindly (1 Cor. 7:20-21, Eph. 6:5-9, Col. 3:22-25, 1 Tim. 6:1-4, Tit. 2:9-10, Phm. 10-18, 1 Peter 2:18-19). Evangelicals who felt that their conscience was bound by the letter of Scripture truly believed that the apostles endorsed slavery.

In most instances, the instructions to slaves were given in parallel to instructions to wives to be subordinate and children to be obedient. They reasoned that rejecting the comments about slavery would call into question the authority of husbands and parents.

Slaves were to be subservient and content with their lot because this was how they were to serve Christ (Eph. 6:5, Col 3:22), honor God (1 Tim. 6:1, Tit 2:9), and learn the Christian virtue of suffering (1 Peter 2:18).

White preachers sought to impress on their slaves that if they wanted to be saved, they needed to obey God’s commands. Not to be submissive and accept their lot in life could lead them to hell. To disagree with what Scripture so plainly taught was not to disobey the preacher, but God himself. No wonder the vast majority of slaves internalized and owned their slave status. Slaves themselves even gave such sermons.

To Sum Up

The force of this cumulative argument for slavery, based primarily on biblical exegesis, is impressive. Those who propounded this “biblical theology” thought it irrefutable.

In 1835, the Presbyterian Synod of West Virginia fiercely assailed the case for abolition, calling it “a dogma” contrary “to the clearest authority of the word of God.”[6] In 1845, the Old School Presbyterian Assembly decreed that slavery is based on “some of the plainest declarations of the Word of God.”[7] Charles Hodge wrote, “if the present course of the abolitionists is right, then the course of Christ and the apostles was wrong.” To call slavery sinful, he added, was “a direct impeachment of the Word of God.”[8]

Southern evangelicals, steeped in Reformed theology and committed to the authority of Scripture, were totally convinced that the Bible endorsed both the practice and the institution of slavery. What we must admit is that their “biblical” case for slavery was impressive. They had far more in Scripture to build their “biblical” case for slavery than do “complementarians” today in their case for the permanent subordination of women.

In Part 2, we will more closely examine the parallels between the complementarian case for female subordination and the historical defense of slavery and Apartheid.

Notes

[1] See further on this text, L. R. Bradley, “The Curse of Canaan and the American Negro,” CTM, 42/2, 1971, 100-110; G. P. Robertson, “Current Questions Concerning the Curse of Ham (Gen. 9:20-27)”, JETS, 41/2, 1998, 177-188: R. Hood, Begrimed and Black: Christian Traditions on Blacks and Blackness, Minneapolis, Fortress, 1994, 129-130, 155-163.
[2] See A. B.  Bledsoe, “Liberty and Slavery,” in Cotton is King and Pro-Slavery Arguments, 338-340; T. Stringfellow, “The Bible Argument: or Slavery in the Light of Divine Revelation,” in Cotton is King, 464-472, or in more detail, J. H. Hopkins, A Scriptural, Ecclesiastical, and Historical View of Slavery, from the Days of the Patriarch Abraham to the Nineteenth Century, New York, W. J. Moses, 1864, 76ff.
[3] See Stringfellow, Cotton is King and Pro-Slavery Arguments, 470-471. He refers to Job 1:15-17, 3:19, 4:18, 7:2, 31:13, 42:8 etc where Job speaks of his slaves.
[4] Cotton is King, 340.
[5] Cotton is King, 480.
[6] H. Shelton Smith, In His Image, 79.
[7] Quoted in J. Murray, Principles of Conduct, 260.
[8] Cotton is King, 849.

I don’t know Darrin Patrick and I feel sorry for his church and his personal family and Darrin himself. He — his ministry — is the result of a pattern that has emerged in the last thirty years with celebrity pastors and leaders and image-conscious teachers and charismatic people. There’s too much of this type. I hear too much talk in these circles about the pastor’s authority and leadership and power. But there is another way: cruciformity, which doesn’t mean “submit to me” but “submit to Christ, me first.” Before I get to Kent Keith’s profound understanding of leadership, I go to the church’s statement about Darrin Patrick.

First, the church leadership sums it up like this:

The initial and now confirmed accusations [against Darrin Patrick] were not of adultery but did violate the high standard for elders in marriage through inappropriate meetings, conversations, and phone calls with two women. (I Tim. 3.2). Additionally, the Board has been engaged for several years now in uncovering and confronting other deep sin patterns in Darrin that do not reflect the Biblical qualifications for an elder, such as ● abandonment of genuine Biblical community (Titus 1.8) ● refusal of personal accountability (failure to be a fellow elder according to I Pt. 5.1) ● lack of self-control (I Tim. 3.2) ● manipulation and lying (Titus 1.8) ● domineering over those in his charge (I Pt. 5.3) ● misuse of power/authority (I Pt. 5.3) ● a history of building his identity through ministry and media platforms (necessity to be “sober-minded” in I Tim. 3.2 and avoid selfish gain in I Pt. 5.2)

In one simple term, authoritarianism. The solution to this requires a patient, long-term exposure to patterns of authoritarianism and a gradual growth into a leader who fosters the life of others instead of himself. This isn’t something that can be fixed by reading a new book, nor can it be learned over a weekend retreat. It requires working under a skilled servant leader who can supervise the development of new patterns.

People enter into leadership for a variety of reasons, including passion and skills and gifts and a desire to lead and a desire to control and — here comes our theme — a desire to serve. I believe many today who are leaders have gifts and skills and passion but too often are dominated by a desire to control and lead and not a desire to serve and lead through empowering others.

Gospel-shaped leadership is servant leadership, not control leadership and not dominating leadership.

No one knows this better than Kent M. Keith, The Case for Servant Leadership (2d edition; Terrace Press). Kent has led at the Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership, has been president of Chaminade University, and is now the president at Pacific Rim Christian University in Hawaii. Kris and I have been in Kent’s home and experienced the (servant and generous) hospitality of Kent and Elizabeth. (Just in case you didn’t know, Kent is the author of the Paradoxical Commandments — see them at bottom of post.)

The servant model of leadership counters the power model, which is focused on “how to accumulate and wield power, how to make people do things, how to attack and win. It is about clever strategies, applying pressure, and manipulating people to get what you want” (19). That is, it is realpolitik — a theory that is distant from a theory of ethics. Servant leadership theory is first established in ethics and then works out that ethic through leadership.

Here are the key practices of servant leadership?

1. Self-awareness.
2. Listening
3. Changing the pyramid.
4. Developing your colleagues.
5. Coaching, not controlling.
6. Unleashing the energy and intelligence of others.
7. Foresight.

Read and learn; this guy lives it. Good for PacRim!

The Paradoxical Commandments (by Kent Keith)

1. People are illogical, unreasonable, and self-centered.
Love them anyway.

2. If you do good, people will accuse you of selfish ulterior motives.
Do good anyway.

3. If you are successful, you will win false friends and true enemies.
Succeed anyway.

4. The good you do today will be forgotten tomorrow.
Do good anyway.

5. Honesty and frankness make you vulnerable.
Be honest and frank anyway.

6. The biggest men and women with the biggest ideas can be shot down by the smallest men and women with the smallest minds.
Think big anyway.

7. People favor underdogs but follow only top dogs.
Fight for a few underdogs anyway.

8. What you spend years building may be destroyed overnight.
Build anyway.

9. People really need help but may attack you if you do help them.
Help people anyway.

10. Give the world the best you have and you’ll get kicked in the teeth.
Give the world the best you have anyway
.

When I saw the title of her book — Neither Complementarian nor Egalitarian: A Kingdom Corrective to the Evangelical Gender Debate — and then saw that Craig Blomberg wrote a foreword and Lynn Cohick the afterword I had an odd response: “Sure, let’s see if there can be a Third Way approach.” Then the term “kingdom” caught my attention — not knowing how the author, Michelle Lee-Barnewall, might define “kingdom” — and the word “corrective” even more, so she had me and I wanted to see where this approach might take us.

With more than plenty of justification, many have said that the complementarianism side has far too often focused on authority (not on the “complements” of genders, which now is better expressed by “mutuality”) while egalitarianism has focused on rights (and that term sounds too much like the liberal ideals flowing out of the French Revolution). Those two terms dominate the debate and have become the politics of gender in the evangelical movement. Simple facts. Not a debate. Yet, more than a few have also wondered aloud if there might be a better way. Which is why I’m interested in Lee-Barnewall’s book.

She begins with the cultural context for how Christians have formed this split between complementarians and egalitarians, a culture that she both respects — nothing is a-contextual — and holds up for analysis. Which is to say, both complementarians and egalitarians are riding cultural waves, and it is not easy for folks to admit this about their own views. Here is a brief summary:

(1) the mid-nineteenth century to the turn of the twentieth century, a period dominated by the Victorian ideal of womanhood but one that also produced the first evangelical feminist movement as evangelical women played a major public role in social reform; (2) the post-World War II era of the 1940s-1950s, which saw a reversal in evangelical openness to women’s public ministry and was characterized in large part by a definition of ideal womanhood in terms of marriage and motherhood that reflected to some degree a return to the Victorian model but in a greater sense the home-oriented culture of postwar America; (3) the 1970s, which saw the rise of egalitarianism, the second evangelical feminist movement, which differed from the previous one in its stress on individual “rights” over women’s roles in larger social issues (18).

She examines each and shows that the view of women (and men) that flows from each rides on each. Her conclusion:

At the turn of the century, the importance of male authority waned as concerns for the moral good of society and the salvation of the world propelled women to the forefront of the very public arenas of social reform and missions. In the post-World War II period, as part of a homebound and peace-desiring nation, evangelicals emphasized a gendered order based strongly on male leadership centered on the nuclear family and the individual household. In the 1960s and 1970s, heightened concerns about justice and civil rights created a fertile environment for egalitarians to challenge this situation and advocate for equal rights (64).

How does this one paragraph sketch locate “complementarianism” and “egalitarianism”? Is it accurate to say the former is a 1950s ideal and the latter a 1970s ideal?

She continues:

When larger concerns such as evangelizing the world and reforming society took hold, women faced less opposition to their leadership in these corporate matters. When the country was no longer consumed by these greater concerns, evangelicals turned to the family as a source of identity and paid more attention to the structure of the home. On the other hand, while the argument for equal rights appeared early on, it did not take hold until the broader culture provided an environment in which its more individualistic concerns could be accepted.

Again, the theme of individualism brings clarity:

Rising individualism in America seemed to play a dominant role in these changing values. When America was occupied with more corporate concerns, such as global evangelism and social reform, evangelicals paid less attention to a gendered order. Belief in male authority never disappeared but was less relevant in the everyday lives of evangelicals more consumed with changing the world for the better. As Americans turned inward and desired peace and security, evangelicals also looked to the immediate family for their identity and sought individual fulfillment there. As the trend toward individualism and self-fulfillment continued, a growing concern for individual rights took root, and the individual superseded the family as the locus of identity.

One more theme, this time the family:

At the turn of the century, the woman’s domain was not merely her immediate household but the entire world, reflecting the corporate assumptions and values of the period. The duty of the church and the women (and men) within it was to exert a positive Christian influence on the world. In the 1950s the household was that of the immediate family, and the priorities of its inhabitants likewise centered on this limited sphere. In this period the church was not so much the instrument to bring Christian good into the world, but rather it existed to serve its members. In the 1970s the home became something from which women needed to be freed so that each woman could take her rightful place in the world and not be limited to the confinement of domestic duties (64-65).

Lee-Barnewall’s book illustrates — and she is well aware of this — the absence of minority voices in this discussion. History tells the story that “evangelicalism” as movement is largely male, white, middle-class Americans with leaders who are mostly educated. When Pamela Cochran tells her story of the evangelical feminism (Evangelical Feminism: A History), the absence of African American women, Asian women, and Latin American women is noticeable. Why? I would turn this around to say it is not an absence of the women in the discussion but that evangelicalism does not embrace them. Each of these female voices most likely belongs to another segment of the church, and that means evangelicalism needs to quit pretending it speaks for all segments of what might be called evangelical orthodoxy. Molly Worthen’s book Apostles of Reason made this abundantly clear: evangelicalism is bigger than the “reformed” segment thought that segment seems both to think it is the voice and has the institutional power to (think it can) speak for the movement. One wonders what would happen to the gender discussion if each of these voices is brought to the table: I suspect there would be some major adjustments.

One of the great themes coming out of Pamela Cochran’s concern with substantively the same subject is hermeneutics, and I could wish Lee-Barnewall had broached that topic more forcefully in her cultural analysis.

John Walton has an interesting analysis of the question of women in ministry included in the Contemporary Significance section of his commentary on Genesis 2 (The NIV Application Commentary Genesis).  This is worth some serious thought and discussion.

Commitments. He suggests several steps and commitments we should take. First, the commitments quoted from pp. 189-191.

Methodological Commitments.

1. We must allow the text to pursue its own agenda, not force it to pursue ours.
2. We must be committed to the intention of the author rather than getting whatever mileage we can out of the words he used.
3. We must resist over interpreting the text in order to derive the angle we are seeking.
4. We must be willing to have our minds changed by the text – that is at least part of the definition of submitting ourselves to the authority of the text.
5. We must be willing to accept the inevitable disappointment if the text does not address or solve the questions we would like answers to.

These are all important guidelines to keep in mind. We shouldn’t hijack the text, commandeering it for our own purposes. I would temper this, though, with the realization that the New Testament authors did feel free to reinterpret texts based on what they knew of the gospel of Jesus Christ. While it is essential to understand the intention of the author, the gospel can change our understanding.

Personal Commitments.

1. We must be willing to preserve a godly perspective on the issue and accord Christian respect to those we disagree with, refusing to belittle, degrade, accuse, or insult them. Ad hominem arguments and other varieties of “negative campaigning” should be set aside.
2. We must not allow our differences of opinion to overshadow and disrupt the effectiveness of ministry and our Christian witness.
3. We must decry the arrogance that accompanies a feeling of self-righteousness and portrays others as somehow less godly because of the position they hold.

This is an outstanding list of commitments — the kind of commitments that we attempt to maintain on this blog when discussing a wide variety of issues, from the age of the earth and evolution to women in ministry, male headship, to hell, Calvinism, and more. But the next list is even more important.

Values Commitments.

1. We must determine that individual “rights” and the pursuit of them will not take precedence over more important values, as they have in our society at large.
2. We must resist any desire to hoard or attain power, though our society and our fallenness drive us to pursue it above all else.
3. We must constantly strive to divest ourselves of self, though we live in a “What about me?” world.
4. We must accept that ministry is not to be considered a route to self-fulfillment; it is service to God and his people.

John completely won me over with this list. Whatever conclusions we come to concerning women in ministry, if these values are not at heart we are wrong. Period. Christian leadership, teaching, and “authority” is only for the benefit of others as we follow the call of Jesus. It is grounded in self-sacrifice and love. There is nothing in this about rights or power. No alpha males or flaming feminists here. This is the heart of the matter.

John suggests that if we agree with these commitments “the debate will become largely academic” and “fade into oblivion.” I’ll dig into this more below, but it is worth pointing out that the same applies to marriage. If a marriage honors the counterpartnership of Genesis 2 (And They Become One Flesh) and the teachings of leadership, mutual submission, respect, and love in the New Testament (The Great Reversal), the question of male headship in marriage is relegated to dusty academic journals with little to no impact on everyday life.

What Difference Does it Make? John continues his discussion digging into the consequences of the controversy over women in leadership by posing two questions.

First, what is the cost if women are restricted when they should not be? He suggests that some ministries will be done less effectively or lost, because the best gifted people won’t be able carry them out. But in the long run God will still prevail, and the gifts lost in one area will be redirected into others.  He also suggests that individual women may feel unfulfilled and disrespected. This last is not insignificant, but isn’t really the heart of the matter. John doesn’t add this – but I think the other consequence of this situation is that it would give a undeserved boost to male ego and thus foster an unhealthy environment.

Second, what is the cost if women are not restricted when they should be? John suggests that these are far less dire than some assume. A God who can speak through an ass, who can and has worked through male pastors living lives of adultery, and often works through faulty preaching grounded in sloppy interpretation, can certainly speak through women in the church whether this is his ideal or not. No human voice is perfect, yet it is still God’s church and he will prevail.

Some will suggest that when women exercise leadership or teach and preach that men have lost their control, are being forced out of a “feminine church.” But this “is an ego/power issue and does not belong in the discussion.” This cannot be an issue of power and control from either side. Women can be equally guilty of a thirst for power baptized in God words. “As Christian men or women, the only power is Christ’s power … those who yearn for it most are the least worthy of having it.” Christ is head of the church – not men or women, whether lay people, pastors or elders/deacons/whatever.

John doesn’t see Genesis 2 speaking to this issue at all and we err when we bring Genesis 2-3 into the discussion.  Genesis 2 offers insight into human roles in partnership but doesn’t get us to the specifics beyond this. “Genesis 2 proclaims God’s gracious provision for the blessing to be procured. In addition the text addresses the interdependence that exists between man and woman.” (p. 192) On this we can all agree.

So what now?  I would like to conclude this post with some thoughts. My position is similar to John’s, perhaps why I found his analysis so refreshing. Although what follows is my take alone, he may or may not agree.

Personally, in our 21st century western culture I think shared leadership between men and women, including in preaching and teaching, should be our preference.  The answer could be different in other times and places. However, anyone who is convinced that the biblical ideal is male-only leadership should prefer such a church for regular fellowship. It certainly isn’t intrinsically wrong to seek out, belong to, or lead such a church.

But there are ways in which an insistence on male-only leadership can be destructive. This is true in any time or place.

For example, if it leads a man to feel or argue that it is demeaning, or worse yet, sinful, to sit in the audience of a female teacher on occasion; that it undermines his manhood to so place himself “under the authority” of a woman. (I have heard and read these arguments.) Such arguments are governed more by the ego and power culture of the world than by the gospel of Jesus Christ.  If a man feels that he and his group cannot cooperate or fellowship with a Christian group that accepts women as speakers/teachers because he would sin in participation … well that is just dead wrong. Frankly, I don’t think this is grounded in a fear of the Lord, but in human ego and stubbornness. It seems to me that we should consider any people who believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth; in Jesus Christ who crucified, dead, and buried then rose again; in the Holy Spirit, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting as brothers and sisters, fundamentally with us rather than against us. No matter what they believe on other less important issues.

God can speak through any vessel as John notes in his commentary.  In fact every human speaker/teacher fails in some fashion of their lives. Pride, ambition, ego, sexual sin, anger, greed, and so on, some combination of these stains us all. Every pastor at every church, every speaker at every conference, every writer of every commentary, is a fallen, fallible human being.  Whether male or female. There is no place for hero worship in the Christian church. We don’t follow Paul, Apollos, or Cephas … or insert more recent names here. Christ isn’t divided. We would do well to remember this as we listen and learn, always testing the teaching by the Spirit and Scripture.

And this leads to a second point. Our only ultimate authority is God and his Son, Jesus, the Messiah.  We are never permanently or absolutely under the authority of another human. Because of this there is no question of being under inappropriate authority. All humans are fallible and we are all individually answerable to God.  It can never demean us to listen to another Christian, whether rich or poor, slave or free, male or female, educated or uneducated, urban or rural, of my race and ethnicity or another. And the list could go on.

Of course, there are a multitude of ways in which an insistence on shared leadership between male and female can go wrong as well. If a woman feels it is her right to power, position, and audience, if it is cast as a feminist battle of the sexes. The ego and power culture of the world is a trap for all humans … male and female.

One of the handicaps of the Christian (if you want to think of it as a handicap) is that we are called to effect change in both our church and our world by living in a kingdom fashion of service and love, not by using the tools of power and manipulation common in the world. We serve a Lord whose call is to take up our cross daily and follow him, to love and serve others.  We are all called to ministry, and to take advantage of the opportunities that come, to advance the gospel of Jesus Christ using the gifts that God has given to build up his church.

The way we deal with this issue will make a big difference in the witness of the church to our culture.

What do you think of John’s analysis?

How should we approach this issue? What kind of a stand are we called to take?

What is the heart of the matter?

If you wish to contact me directly you may do so at rjs4mail[at]att.net.

If interested you can subscribe to a full text feed of my posts at Musings on Science and Theology.

Gotta love Ben and Julianna Zobrist, and so do the Cubs! By Catherine Parks:

When your husband and his team win the World Series, you’d think that’d be the most exciting moment of the year for your family. Or at least, the week. But not for Julianna Zobrist—wife of Ben Zobrist, second baseman during the Kansas City Royals’ winning season last year.

Just a few days after the Royals took home the title, musician Julianna had her own big victory, releasing her single “Alive.” And, after enduring the tension of the championship with a full-term pregnant belly, she gave birth to their third child.

The Zobrists’ packed World Series week showcases the twin pressures of career and family for professional athletes—a topic that recently reemerged in the MLB. Last week, Adam LaRoche opted to leave the Chicago White Sox after the club requested he limit the time his son joined him at work. Baseball fans debated if LaRoche’s family-first expectations were reasonable. Though fans have also questioned whether players should miss games for the birth of a child, the MLB became the first pro sports league to set an official paternity leave policy in 2011.

With a seven-year-old son, four-year-old daughter, and five-month-old baby girl, the Zobrists are once again heading into a new season—this time with the Chicago Cubs. Over a decade of friendship with Julianna, I’ve watched her family grow as she and Ben follow their careers in Christian music and baseball. During spring training, we caught up to discuss her experience as an MLB wife. She told me what it’s like to maintain a marriage, manage a family, and grow in faith, all while following around a professional baseball team… and writing and recording her own music.

From moral relativism to tolerance of all but intolerance, by Jonathan Merritt:

Donald Trump’s candidacy offers a compelling case study. The conservatives who support Trump—perhaps half of all Republicans or more—say they like that he “speaks his mind” even if his views are “politically incorrect.” In other words, Trump makes no effort to be inclusive or tolerate those with whom he disagrees. For his supporters, policies of mass deportation and discrimination are acceptable because they push back against the new moral code.

Staring at Trump’s carefully coifed hairdo across the fence are liberals and younger, more moderate conservatives. Having come of age during the shift from moral relativism, they place a higher value on tolerating others’ opinions and avoiding discrimination. Because they are offended by Trump’s violation of social virtue, this group can be found on Facebook, Twitter, and on meme-laden Instagram shaming Trump and all who support him.

From the Cold War to the War on Terror, conservators have protested the “evils” of moral relativism for decades, and now it may be a relic of the past. But although conservatives got what they wanted, they didn’t get what they expected. It’s hard to say for sure whether they’re better off now than they were before. It depends on how you look at it. Or, as some might say, it’s all relative.

Erin Blakemore:

Grafting plants is hard work: It helps reduce stress on plants’ roots and create sturdier crops, but it can really stress out farmers. Humans have to struggle tocut plants just the right way and bind them together. That’s where a new robot comes in: With the help of steel “hands,” it turns plant grafting from tedious art into swift science.

Vegetable expert Richard Hassell and his team recently revealed a new robotic system that grafts more quickly and efficiently than a human ever could. They modified a Korean-manufactured robot to grab two plants, precisely slice the upper shoot of one and the root stock of the other, and clamp the two parts together so they can grow into a single plant.

Think of the robot as a high-tech plant surgeon that makes precise slices and fuses together two organisms into a Franken-plant in a flash. In just an hour, the robot can graft together over 3,000 plants — a feat a human being could never accomplish.

“Generally, grafting is done by hand,” explained Hassell. “It’s a learned skill, so it’s very time-consuming.” Grafting thousands of plants can be grueling, and the sensitivity of young vegetable plants means there’s a high failure rate. Imprecise or too-quick grafters can damage the plant, and the slow-and-steady can never hope to graft to scale.

Ted Gossard:

That said, I don’t believe we do well for America, and far more importantly, well in terms of the gospel and the mission of the church to get caught up in the political firestorm that is now assaulting our nation. People should see a difference in us no matter what happens in that. Our lives in and through Jesus are to be defined in terms of Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount, not in terms of the United States Constiution, even while we can have a healthy respect for that document, and for a democratic republic, or liberal democracy. People need to see that our lives are not defined by the latter, even while we seek to live with all due respect, in compliance to the laws of the land.

The challenge for us is to stay informed about what is happening, so we can pray. And above all, stay true to the one who has called us to show the better way. The way of righteousness and justice in the love of God’s kingdom come in Jesus. We have to hold on to that, and in comparison, let the rest go. People ought to say when they look at us that we really do believe Jesus is Lord and Caesar is not. That our confidence is not in the United States of America, even while we seek to conduct our lives here for its good, and God’s blessing on it, the same certainly holding true for Christians in other nations, just as Israel was to do the same for their captive nations when they were in exile.

We can help America through this storm only insofar as we stay true to our calling, and refuse to get caught up in the war of words and the division which is threatening this nation. As we go on in the society that in and through Jesus will flourish, with the hope of seeing good coming out of whatever happens. And with the confidence that God is sovereign over the nations, and Jesus is Lord.

Kathleen Toner:

Cleveland, Ohio (CNN)Foodies savor the French cuisine at Edwins, an upscale restaurant that’s earned a reputation as one of Cleveland’s finest eateries.

But this high-end establishment provides far more than a good meal. It’s staffed almost entirely by people who were once incarcerated.

By day, ex-offenders learn the fundamentals of the culinary arts industry. By night, they put their skills to work.

It’s the vision of Brandon Chrostowski, a chef and veteran of elite restaurants in Chicago, New York and Paris. He realized that the stigma of a prison record made it challenging for ex-offenders to find work, so he decided to do something about it.

“After someone’s done their time, everyone deserves that fair and equal second chance,” said Chrostowski, 36. “At Edwins, you can come to us after you’ve served that time and start over.”

If you are a writer or aspire to writing, these are the best “tricks.”

What percentage? 

American portion sizes, our couch-potato ways and our waistlines are the punchlines of jokes around the world. But how bad are we really? Out here on the East Coast, in an urban area full of lots of highly educated people sporting all manner of Apple Watches, Fitbits and the like on their wrists, you might come to the conclusion that the stereotypes are an exaggeration. You’d be wrong.

A study conducted by Oregon State University, the University of Mississippi and the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga has awarded nearly every adult in the country a failing grade. The researchers used four barometers to measure whether someone’s behavior could be considered healthy. They include an appropriate balanced diet, being active, meeting the recommended criteria for body fat percentage and not smoking.

Using data from the 2003-2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data, they found that 97.3 percent of the 4,745 people they looked at did not meet the criteria.

Writing in Mayo Clinical Proceedings, the researchers described the standards as very reasonable. That is, they weren’t looking for people to be marathon runners but just have a moderate amount of 150 minutes of activity a week.

Ten Sermon ideas for Easter by David Roseberry:

I have looked back over 30 years of preaching Easter sermons and have pulled my best thoughts and approaches.  Some I am proud of and might even argue are great ideas.  Others are meh…  You have decide what’s what.  But I offer these with the hope that they might help all of us communicate the amazing, bed-rock truth of the Resurrection to an unbelieving and needy world.

1. “Go tell the disciples and Peter…” (Mark) The angels were clear to instruct the disciples to include Peter in the meet-up in Galilee; meaning his denial of Jesus was not going to be the final verdict on his life.  This is an indication that there is forgiveness and restoration; all who sin can find forgiveness through the Risen Christ.
2. The women left the tomb and they were afraid. The Resurrection is such a massive event that if you are not afraid, you don’t understand it. Perhaps it has been domesticated in the life of the modern church; placed on the shelf of a religious ideas. But the Resurrection should ignite a healthy sense of fear and trembling in every follower of Jesus Christ. It means that the world as we knew it…is being replaced by a world as God wants it.
3. In the Resurrection accounts, the women come to the tomb with spices; out of duty and devotion they are there to anoint a dead body for a proper burial. But the Resurrection effectively ends all proper religiosity. The ancient rituals to make dead bodies last are over. He rose from the dead; ancient spices are no longer required. As John Stott put it: We live and die; Christ died and lived!
4. The miracle of the Resurrection is about something NOT being there: the body. The tomb is empty. The grave is not final.  This is a reversal of the common foe that every person in every culture has to face: Death. Now, death is not the end for those who believe. The Resurrection of Christ shows us that death has been defeated. Most people want to cheat death. But Christ didn’t cheat death; he defeated it.
5. The Resurrection will stand as proof that everything that Jesus said about himself was true.  What he said he would do, he did.What he promised it meant, it means. The Resurrection is the validity of the Gospel message.
6. What if we were all inexorably behind on our accumulated massive debt.  We had no hope of digging out of the hole we had made for ourselves. Every day would be a pointless exercise in trying to pay off what could never be paid off. Then one day a prince came and gave everything he had…even his own life… for everything we owed.  We owed a debt we could not pay; he paid a debt he did not owe.  And then, as a sign of a whole new order of a debt-free world, he was raised from the dead. Then he could live with us…and we would live with him.  We’d be free.
7. The single most important prophesy that Jesus gave in his ministry concerning himself was this: that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and on the third day rise.” (Luke 24:7)  This has been fulfilled in the Resurrection. And we can now look back and see that ALL the prophecies of the coming of the Messiah, the work of the Savior, and the promise of redemption…all of these prophecies were fulfilled in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead…and those not fulfill WILL be one day!
8. One interesting observation about the Resurrection is that everyone is running to the tomb or running to tell others about it. No one runs in the New Testament except at the end in every account (in Mark, the women flee the tomb; i.e. run!). At the promise of the Resurrection and the news of the Resurrection everyone starts running.  The disciples are running all over the place; they are out-running each other (John) to get their first or be the first to tell others. Question: do you run anymore about anything regarding your faith or are have you slowed way down?
9. The Gospel of Matthew has four key words that should animate and mobilize every listener in the room and every hearer of the Good News. Here is the four-point plan to change the world spoken by the angel:  “Come, see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead…”  That’s it. What a mission plan!  Come. See. Go. Tell.
10. There are about a dozen different episodes or appearances of the Resurrection; 13 if you count Acts 1. (There are over 500 witnesses, I know…but only about a dozen specific stories of His appearance.)  But in every single one of them the effect is the same.  Every person who encountered the Risen Christ or the angels who told them of it was ‘set right and sent out’.  They were set right in their faith, their doubts, their worries, their fears, their depression…and they were sent out to proclaim and to live in it.

I’ll be preaching my last Easter Sermon at Christ Church this Sunday. I hope some of these will help you.

Your delivery is here: Michael Laris:

A brood of sidewalk drones could be rolling around the nation’s capital within a year, if a D.C. Council member has her way.

Executives from Starship Technologies, with roots in Estonia and London, say their goal is to unleash a platoon of “smart, friendly robots” that will ply sidewalks along with pedestrians to make local deliveries of groceries or small packages “almost free.” The company is led by Skype co-founders Ahti Heinla and Janus Friis, and launched the effort in November.

Councilwoman Mary Cheh and company officials sought to make a splash by promising one of the squat vehicles on Wednesday would deliver legislation to the council authorizing self-driving delivery robots. The little white device, which looks like an ice chest rolling on six wagon wheels, did indeed scoot its way into Council Secretary Nyasha Smith’s office with the three-page bill in its compartment and reporters on its tail.

But it was guided there by a young Starship employee gripping a video game controller behind his back and trying to blend into the hubbub.

“Robotic delivery!” Cheh announced.

There were no chirpy little R2-D2 sounds, just the quiet churn of bureaucracy starting to roll as Smith stamped in the legislation. “I want it to speak with me. I want it to have a relationship with me!”  Cheh said.

As does Allan Martinson, Starship’s chief operating officer, who saw some 6,000 firms as a venture capitalist before deciding to join the robotic delivery startup. This is no phantom product that will have fizzled in a year, he said.

“It’s a real, tangible, solid thing,” Martinson said. “You can engineer yourself out of any situation. That’s the philosophy of this company.”

Tipping dilemma? Christopher Elliott:

Gratuities, once limited to restaurant servers, bellhops and concierges, are being solicited more than ever, and travelers are prime targets. It’s happening at a time when tipping is reportedly being phased out, leading to confusion and the inevitable question: When should I leave a little extra money on the table?

Consider the experience of Robert Rose, a television producer from New York, who was visiting South Beach in Miami recently. He needed to fix a cuff on a pair of pants and found a nearby dry cleaner. That’s when he noticed a tip jar next to the cash register.

“I declined their services,” he says.

Hands are out in all kinds of places, including fast-food restaurants, coffee shops, food trucks, ski rental stores and even public restrooms. Usually, the gratuities are optional, though they can be strongly encouraged with signs or payment systems that pressure you into adding a little extra. But not always. Some cruise lines automatically add gratuities to your final bill “for your convenience,” and they can be difficult to remove.