Becoming Egalitarian in Greek Class

Last updated on: January 21, 2014 at 6:47 am By Scot McKnight

You’re in for a treat today as Meredith and her husband Curtis share the interesting story of how he came to hold his egalitarian position.

She said: I picked my seminary, in no small part, because it fully supported women in ministry. They had decided the issue long ago, and so I expected to experience a learning environment that responded to me as a unique person, not as my gender. This was indeed the case.

I studied theology in undergrad and went straight on to grad school. Eager for a change of pace, I decided to start with the Greek Intensive. It’s the only class you take for the quarter, which meant I could bank on three months without having to read a book or write a paper. As a bonus, it was capped at 25 people, and became a great way to make friends as a new student.

He said: I became an Egalitarian in Greek class. While for some people changing core theological positions between declensions might be common, this was a unique experience for me. Frankly, it wasn’t even Greek class itself that did it (sorry, Dr. Hill, I know you tried); it was someone I met in Greek class. She was as surprised as I was.

It was an intensive class: four hours per day, three days per week. We all saw a lot of each other, and got to know each other pretty well during class breaks. I got to know one person particularly well, but most of that is another story. (#MeetCuteInBiblicalGreek?)

The part of the story that matters for now began during one of our daily breaks. We had just discussed in class the fact that the passage starting in Ephesians 5:21 was all grammatically one piece, and should therefore be read together instead of being split apart as is often done by those who support strict gender roles. She asked what I thought about it all and I said I didn’t really know.

Weekly Meanderings, 7 December 2013

Last updated on: December 7, 2013 at 6:27 am By Scot McKnight

John Blake’s article on C.S. Lewis, the man you never knew, is simply not news for anyone who has ever cared to know. Furthermore, the essay lacks perspective in the direction and change in Lewis’ own life. Tell a man’s story true, but tell it fair.

(CNN) – He looked like a “red-faced pork butcher in shabby tweeds,” lived secretly with a woman for years and was so turned on by S&M that he once asked people at a party whether he could spank them.

We’re talking, of course, about C.S. Lewis, the Christian icon and author of classics such as “Mere Christianity” and “The Chronicles of Narnia.”

Christena Cleveland on singleness:

Since married people are the ones calling the shots, they remain central to the life of the church. Meanwhile, single people are relegated to the margins.[ii] Whether this is intentional or not, this “married people monopoly” results in a Christian world in which single people are often misunderstood, ignored, overlooked for leadership positions, caricatured, equated with immaturity, and little more than a punchline or an afterthought. To me, it makes sense that churches and Christian organizations have a poor track record when it comes to honoring single people. How can pastors/leaders who got married in their early-to-mid-20s possibly understand the complexities of singleness or how to honor the image of God in single people?

After interacting with the church, many singles start to wonder: Is there something wrong with me? Is God working in my life? Am I as valuable (to God, to the church) as married people? Does God love me as much as he loves married people? Does God have good things in store for me as a single person?

The church has done such a number on single people that one singles minister knew that before he could even begin to address God’s call to single adults in his book God’s Call to the Single Adult, he needed to debunk the widely-believed myth that “singles are half a cookie.”

In a Church that was founded by a single guy, singles are terribly marginalized. There’s something wrong with this picture. So without further ado, here are my tips on how church people (pastors, leaders and other influencers) can turn this barge around and begin to create communities that honor the image of God in single adults.

These ibexes are very, very agile.

Jon Merritt, quoting Ingrid Schlueter, producer of Janet Mefferd’s show, on the Driscoll case:

I was a part-time, topic producer for Janet Mefferd until yesterday when I resigned over this situation. All I can share is that there is an evangelical celebrity machine that is more powerful than anyone realizes. You may not go up against the machine. That is all. Mark Driscoll clearly plagiarized and those who could have underscored the seriousness of it and demanded accountability did not. That is the reality of the evangelical industrial complex.

Michael Quicke on downsizing his library:

Downsizing is rarely easy but I confess how hard it has been to give away books. I have always loved having books around and for years have enjoyed collecting and reading an ever-growing library. In the past, large rooms for studies and offices have positively encouraged hoarding! Since coming to seminary I have been treated to a constant stream of publisher’s donations, sometimes for endorsements, which have jostled alongside new books purchased for particular preaching foci. However, last year I began the painful process of thinning out books and I have since given away over a thousand books. I will greatly exceed that target by the time I have finished. In fact, my future limited shelving space in Cambridge means that over 90% of my library will go. Oh, it has been painful saying goodbye to so many volumes which had become friends.

And saying goodbye sometimes comes with cruel reality checks as I realize I cannot possibly read all that I once hoped to delive into. For example, I have collected books on particular subjects that I was going to dive into, that I even imagined that I could write books about, but I now realize time is running out! I remember an athletic deacon in my first church saying that he had suddenly realized that certain things would never happen for him, like playing cricket for England. I remember being amused, but then realizing he was being serious. (I appreciate US friends would not likely take this seriously anyway!) Yes, what once seemed limitless pastures are now ring-fenced. I am grateful that I shall still be able to graze but I can see a fence.

Joel Willitts affirms egalitarian/mutuality in male-female relationships, a position toward which he has been moving for nearly a decade.

Hagia Sophia to become a mosque?

Pope Francis and his predecessors:

ROME, December 3, 2013 – In the voluminous apostolic exhortation “Evangelii Gaudium” made public one week ago, Pope Francis has made it known that he wants to distinguish himself on at least two points from the popes who preceded him.

The first of these points is also the one that has had the greatest impact in the media. And it concerns both the exercise of the primacy of the pope and the powers of the episcopal conferences.

The second point concerns the relationship between Christianity and cultures….

John Paul II and Benedict XVI after him judged the average quality of the world’s bishops and of most episcopal conferences to be modest. And they acted accordingly. Making themselves the leader and model and in some cases – as in Italy – resolutely intervening to change the leadership and marching orders.

With Francis, the episcopal conferences could instead see a recognition of greater autonomy. With the foreseeable repercussions exemplified recently by Germany, where prominent bishops and cardinals have been clashing publicly over the most varied questions, from the criteria of diocesan administration to communion for the divorced and remarried, in this latter case anticipating and forcing solutions on which the double synod of bishops of 2014 and 2015 has been called to debate and decide….

n maintaining this, pope Bergoglio seems to be reaching out to those who hold that the proclamation of the Gospel has an original purity of its own apart from any cultural contamination. A purity that should be restored to it, freeing it mainly from its “Western” trappings of yesterday and today, allowing it to “inculturate” itself each time in new syntheses with other cultures.

But put in these terms, this relationship between Christianity and cultures overlooks the indivisible connection between faith and reason, between biblical revelation and Greek culture, between Jerusalem and Athens, to which John Paul II dedicated the encyclical “Fides et Ratio” and on which Benedict XVI focused his memorable talk in Regensburg of September 12, 2006….

Speaking of the Pope, this report from the Netherlands is not good:

Dutch bishops visiting Rome this week have given Pope Francis a dramatic snapshot of the steep decline of Roman Catholicism in its European heartland.

Both Catholic and Protestant Christian ranks have shrunk dramatically across Europe in recent decades, and hundreds of churches have been sold off to be turned into apartments, shops, bars or warehouses.

In the Netherlands, churches have been closing at a rate of one or two a week. The bishops told the pope in Rome on Monday that about two-thirds of all Roman Catholic churches in the Netherlands would have to be shut or sold by 2025, and many parishes merged, because congregations and finances were “in a long-term shrinking process”.

It is a Conundrum Pt. 2 (RJS)

Last updated on: November 21, 2013 at 6:55 am By RJS

On Tuesday I put up a post It is a Conundrum Pt. 1 that gave my answer to the question “How can you be a Christian?” in part through a survey of “love” passages in the New Testament. The directive to love one another is pervasive throughout the New Testament. My answer to the question “how can you be a Christian?” is situated in a deep desire to be part of the people of God living (or more accurately aiming to live) according to the kingdom ethics of God both now and forever.

There is more to this than some esoteric command to love, of course. Love requires action. One of the passages in Tuesday’s post came from the encounter between Jesus and the Rich Young Ruler:

As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” … Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” (Mk 10:17, 21) (See also Mt 19:21, Lk 12:15, Lk 12:33-34, Lk 18:18, 22)

The passage from Mark as I’ve quoted it above doesn’t quite do justice to the whole:

At this the man’s face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth. Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!” (Mk 10:22-23) (See also Mt 19:23, Lk 18:24)

This passage should worry us, at least the vast majority of us. In the grand scheme of things we are quite rich. The command to sell everything and give it to the poor is, as I noted in the post Tuesday, softened a little later in the New Testament. I think this is because the call isn’t to radical poverty, but to radical love. Love of wealth hinders, even prevents, love for one another.

Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life. (1 Tm 6:17-19)

That the command is softened from radical poverty to radical love doesn’t remove the need for radical generosity. In fact the general theme toward radical generosity and away from greed and love of money or material possessions permeates the New Testament. And it is important to note that the command isn’t to be generous in giving to the church, but to be steeped in generosity as a way of life, especially toward those who are poor, oppressed, or in need.

This is a command that seems rather ignored at times in the Church today. And this is a conundrum. We talk about being Bible believing Christians, about inerrancy and authority at great length. After all, women in ministry is an issue because of only two key passages (1 Cor 14:34-35 and 1 Tim 2:11-13). These lay down an absolute law to which we must submit, at least according to the interpretation of many. Sorry ma’am, we are told, I didn’t make the rules, God did. I just follow them.

But there are far more than two passages calling for generosity, condemning greed, and in favor of the poor, and they are pretty clear. Far more clear than 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2.

What does it mean to take the Bible as the word of God?

A friend mentioned that when he preaches on issues of money and generosity he can sense the change in body language and the resistance that comes from the audience.

Commenters on the blog over the years have sometimes been quick to point out that Jesus told us we would always have the poor (Mt 26:11, Mk 14:7, Jn 12:8), therefore efforts to eradicate or even alleviate poverty are futile. Some will go so far to say that money is better spent on “evangelism” (which has a rather loose definition).

Others have pointed to the passage in 2 Thessalonians 3:6,10

In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers and sisters, to keep away from every believer who is idle and disruptive and does not live according to the teaching you received from us. … For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

Whew! Off the hook! Right?

Of course the preponderance of the evidence points in a bit of a different direction. God has a special place for the poor and hungry and words of warning for the rich. A selection of passages (not exhaustive) hammers us over the head as we listen to the New Testament:

He has filled the hungry with good things but has sent the rich away empty. (Lk 1:53)

The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free. (Lk 4:18) (See also Mt 11:5, Lk 7:22)

Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who hunger now, for you will be satisfied. Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh. … But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort. Woe to you who are well fed now, for you will go hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep. (Lk 6:20-21, 24-25)

The seed falling among the thorns refers to someone who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, making it unfruitful. (Mt 13:22) (See also Mk 4:18-20, Lk 8:14)

Then he said to them, “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; life does not consist in an abundance of possessions.” (Lk 12:15)

Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will never fail, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. (Lk 12:33-34)

Then the Lord said to him, “Now then, you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. You foolish people! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also? But now as for what is inside you—be generous to the poor, and everything will be clean for you. (Lk 11:39-41) (See also Mt 23:23-26 – where the NIV has greed and self-indulgence instead of greed and wickedness)

While all the people were listening, Jesus said to his disciples, “Beware of the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. They devour widows’ houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. These men will be punished most severely.” As Jesus looked up, he saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. “Truly I tell you,” he said, “this poor widow has put in more than all the others. All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.” Lk 20:45-21:5 (see also Mk 12:38-44)

(This isn’t a call for the disciples or for us to be like the widow, it is a condemnation of the rich who devour widow’s houses and give only out of their plenty.)

Then Jesus said to his host, “When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or sisters, your relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.” (Lk 14:12-14)

“No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.” The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus. 15 He said to them, “You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of others, but God knows your hearts. What people value highly is detestable in God’s sight. (Lk 16:13-14) (See also Mt 6:24)

But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, “Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.” (Lk 19:8)

Clearly Zacchaeus knew what God asks of his followers, as did Tabitha and Cornelius.

In Joppa there was a disciple named Tabitha (in Greek her name is Dorcas); she was always doing good and helping the poor. (Acts 9:36)

Cornelius stared at him in fear. “What is it, Lord?” he asked. The angel answered, “Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God. (Acts 10:4)

As did Paul.

On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Ro 12:20-21)

Generosity is not only toward brothers and sisters in the faith.

But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people. (1 Cor 5:11)

The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters. (1 Cor 6:7-8)

If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing. (1 Cor 13:3)

Right attitude (love) matters – but generosity isn’t optional.

For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a person is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient. (Eph. 5:5-6)

Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. (Col 3:5)

Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. (1 Ti 3:2-3)

But godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. Those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs. (1 Tim 6:6-10)

And in the letters not written by Paul:

Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, “Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you.” (Heb 13:5)

Believers in humble circumstances ought to take pride in their high position. But the rich should take pride in their humiliation—since they will pass away like a wild flower. For the sun rises with scorching heat and withers the plant; its blossom falls and its beauty is destroyed. In the same way, the rich will fade away even while they go about their business. (Ja 1:9-11)

Listen, my dear brothers and sisters: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? 6 But you have dishonored the poor. (Ja 2:5-6)

Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. (Ja 2:15-17)

Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. (Ja 5:1-3)

And finally from 1 John 3

This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters. If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth. 1 Jn 3:16-18

This is a good place to end. Many of us know 1 John 3:16 quite well. This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. It is a frequent Sunday School memory verse, and a good one, but the rest of the passage isn’t emphasized nearly as often. This is a conundrum and, I have to say, leaves us all open to the charge of hypocrisy. Sorry ma’am you can’t preach – but I don’t really have to live generously and care for the poor. The Bible only seems to be saying that.

Given this inescapable theme – I have to say …

What does it mean to take the Bible seriously as the Word of God?

How should this play out in our lives?

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.

Weekly Meanderings, 16 November 2013

Last updated on: November 14, 2013 at 7:08 pm By Scot McKnight

Dear Mr Photographer, move before this happens. Elks aren’t pets.

Patrick Mitchel proposes the NT is “gender lite” — I like it!

I have a confession.

I don’t really ‘get’ Christian single sex get togethers – whether Women’s Conferences (admittedly have only been to these in drag) or Men’s Conferences (been to some, never really enjoyed them) or to a lesser degree, men’s or women’s ministry meetings of various sorts.

While you can’t make the NT a blueprint for every contemporary ministry model, it does seem to me that within the new covenant ministry of the Spirit, it is quite remarkable how ‘gender lite’ the NT is. (Not getting into details here of those most controversial of very occasional texts addressing specific gender related issues – see elsewhere.)

[I guess you could also say how remarkably ‘leader lite” the NT is, but that’s another discussion.]

What every parent needs to know — ten studies.

Karen on Obamacare:

Two of my four children are in that hurting place as a result of the disaster that is Obamacare. Responsible to their very core, they were already covered through private policies that they picked and paid for themselves. They had done their due diligence and researched different options. One of them has a small child who has to be covered as well. They already had affordable health care that covered things like immunizations and well-baby checks.

Under Obamacare, both girls will see their monthly healthcare cost double, while their coverage will decrease. And they aren’t the only ones. Check out this article in the LA Times. In fact, both girls fall into that category where they won’t be covered at all until Obama’s people get the great cluster-fluck that is Obamacare straightened out.

Not that I have any hopes at all that’s ever going to happen. There is something Orwellian about this notion of entrusting our health care to the very same authority that has been spying on all of us.

What Obama hasn’t yet figured out is that this cluster fluck isn’t a matter of failure of technology. It isn’t a matter of a failure of information. It isn’t a matter of resistance from the GOP. Obamacare is a failure because of every other failure of this administration: It’s a failure of leadership.

Is Pope Francis I a signal of change? Cahill says No:

But in his first American appointment, one that was not in the pipeline before his papal election, he named Bishop Leonard Blair as the new archbishop of Hartford, Connecticut.

Blair is a true believer culture warrior and former Vatican official who led the charge against the Leadership Conference of Religious Women last year and earlier joined in the condemnation of Notre Dame University for having President Barack Obama as a speaker. And in light of Francis closing the door on female priests, many women theologians and lay leaders are wondering about his emphasis on a new role for women in the church.

Jamie Manson, a Yale trained theologian and a writer for National Catholic Reporter, suggests that we should not get too excited. For her, the bottom line is that in spite of the warmth and sincerity of the Pope’s words, he is not indicating any change in church teaching.

Atonement thinking from the Internet Monk:

As I was driving today, the verse heading this post came to my mind. It immediately struck me as yet another clue to the unfathomable love and grace of God toward you and me:

“…love covers a multitude of sins.”

These words were written to suffering followers of Jesus Christ, encouraging them to show deep love for one another. The author reminds them what love does — it covers sins. That is, it overlooks them, it regards them as of no account. Love is generous with others and releases them from expectations of sinless perfection. If you love me, you will not hold my sins against me. You will accept me in spite of my weaknesses, failures, and offenses…

If this is what love is, and if God is love, why then can’t we factor in this same attitude in our thinking about how God views us and deals with us in our sins?

Are humans, who show this kind of love to each other, more gracious and loving than God?

I don’t think I’ve ever heard a Christian preacher or teacher say,

“God loves you, and he overlooks your sins.”

“God won’t let your sins stand between you and him.”

“God values you too much to hold your weaknesses and failures against you.”

“God loves you so much that not even sin can separate you from him.”

Perhaps he is like the father of the Prodigal Son, and not just like a righteous judge upholding the law.

Love covers a multitude of sins.

Renewing My Commitment

Last updated on: November 13, 2013 at 10:00 am By Scot McKnight

From Jon Merritt, a revealing report. This report from Jon has made me renew my commitment to women — beginning at the local church and moving out.

Is the Christian conference industry sexist? I’ve attended or spoken at many Christian conferences over the years and most had either an exclusively male speaker list or were male-dominated. But I haven’t encountered them all or even most of the major ones. So I decided to survey some of the biggest Christian conferences in the evangelical world to uncover what level of female representation they had on stage. Here’s what I found:

Catalyst Conference – East (Atlanta, GA): Total speakers: 13 / Female speakers: 3

Christianity 21 (Denver, CO): Total speakers: 21 / Female speakers: 9

Circles Conference (Grapevine, TX): Total speakers: 12 / Female speakers: 2

Cross Conference (Louisville, KY): Total speakers: 10 / Female speakers: 0

D6 (Dallas, TX): Total speakers: 22 / Female speakers: 4

D6 (Louisville, KY): Total speakers: 32 / Female speakers: 5

Desiring God Conference (Minneapolis, MN): Total speakers: 10 / Female speakers: 0

Exponential Conference (Los Angeles, CA): Total speakers: 27 / Female speakers: 3

Experience Conference (Orlando, FL): Total speakers: 4 / Female speakers: 0

Gateway Conference (Southlake, TX): Total speakers: 10 / Female speakers: 1

Global Leadership Summit (Chicago, IL): Total speakers: 13 / Female speakers: 2

Hillsong Conference (New York City, NY): Total speakers: 6 / Female speakers: 2

Hillsong Conference (Los Angeles, CA): Total speakers: 6 / Female speakers: 2

Kidmin Children’s Ministry Conference (Chicago, IL): Total speakers: 7 / Female speakers: 3

Ligonier National Conference (Orlando, FL): Total speakers: 9 / Female speakers: 0

Love Does (Austin, TX): Total speakers: 11 / Female speakers: 3

Mosaix National Multi-Ethnic Church Conference (Nashville, TN): Total speakers: 50 / Female speakers: 6

National Worship Leaders Conference (Can Juan Capistrano, CA): Total speakers: 9 / Female speakers: 2

National Youth Workers Convention (San Diego, CA): Total speakers: 80 / Female speakers: 20

New Life Leadership Conference (Colorado Springs, Co): Total speakers: 7 / Female speakers: 0

Orange Conference (Atlanta, GA): Total speakers: 10 / Female speakers: 2

Q (Los Angeles, CA): Total speakers: 35 / Female speakers: 13

Resurgence Conference (Seattle, WA): Total speakers: 6 / Female speakers: 0

RightNow (Dallas, TX): Total speakers: 8 / Female speakers: 1

Simply Youth Ministry Conference (Columbus, OH): Total speakers: 71 / Female speakers: 11

Southern Baptist Convention Pastor’s Conference (Houston, TX): Total speakers: 10 / Female speakers: 0

Story Conference (Chicago, IL): Total speakers: 18 / Female speakers: 5

Storyline Conference (Nashville, TN): Total speakers: 9 / Female speakers: 3

Together For the Gospel Conference (Louisville, KY): Total speakers: 19 / Female speakers: 0

The Nines (Online): Total speakers: 110 / Female speakers: 4

Thrive Conference (Granite Bay, CA): Total speakers: 6 / Female speakers: 0

Velocity (Cumming, GA): Total speakers: 32 / Female speakers: 3

Wiki Conference (Katy, TX): Total speakers: 47 / Female speakers: 6

Wild Goose Festival (Hot Springs, NC): Total speakers: 74 / Female speakers: 44

TOTAL
Total speakers: 805 / Female speakers: 159

By my count, that’s around 19% female speaker representation at these major Christian conferences–presumably better than it was even a few years ago, but still lower than it should be. While I don’t think we can conclude that the Christian conference industry is downright sexist, we can say that most conferences have some serious work to do if they want their stage to look anything like the 21st century church.

– See more at: http://jonathanmerritt.religionnews.com/2013/11/13/christian-conferences-sexist-nines-controversy-prompts-reflection/#sthash.Hfuz0WXG.dpuf

Methodist, Jewish, Elder

Last updated on: November 3, 2013 at 2:05 pm By Scot McKnight

Rebekah Simon-Peter, her new name, tells her story of moving from Reformed (liberal) Judaism into Orthodox Judaism into the Christian faith as a result of experiencing an appearance from Jesus in her book A Jew Named Jesus: Discover the Man and His Message. She’s now a Methodist elder/minister and working to reconcile communities in a ministry called BridgeWorks. She addresses classic questions from her own angle, an angle I’d call universalist and probably religiously pluralist. She doesn’t feel at home in either the Jewish community (because of Jesus) or the church (because she’s a Jew). Her husband is Catholic, she’s a Methodist. She is spiritual and religious.

A big difference for her revolves around the religion of Jesus vs. the religion about Jesus. (Nice try, I say to myself, but Jesus made too many self-claims for such a simplistic either/or.)

After telling her story, including the common pattern of wondering about her own experience while exploring what Christians believe by attending a seminary (Illiff), she explores a common question: Was Jesus a Christian? Well, Yes and No but her big theme is that Jesus was and remained thoroughly Jewish — he was Torah-observant Jew with Jewish parents and relations. His central teachings — like what I call the Jesus Creed — were Jewish. So, Jesus was a Jew. Never broke from Judaism even if he challenged it deeply.

Now comes a question with gravitas: Did the Jews reject Jesus? The style of many sermons, she rightly observes, is an “inclusive, loving, good (Christian) Jesus” vs. an “exclusive, narrow-minded, legalistic (Jewish) people” (38). Yes, she’s right, but one must let the rhetoric of Jesus (and Paul) carry some weight in their criticisms, not letting it become anti-Judaism or anti-Semitism. I included a sermon on the blog Sunday (3 November) where Jesus assails a Pharisee vs. a tax collector, stereotyping his way through the whole parable. That kind of rhetoric is typical in the Gospels. So I think she’s right in seeing Jesus’ rhetoric as family talk and not demonizing, and Yes the church has demonized Pharisees.

Some of Jesus’ followers were Pharisees; Jesus followed them in some ways (Matthew 23:1-3); some were Zealots; some were women; Pentecost expanded those followers but they were still very much expanding “Judaism” at some level — thousands opted for Jesus. Jews, she argues, were the makers of Christianity! Saul was as Jewish as one can get. Paul/Saul was, and apparently remained, a Pharisee (Acts 23:6). She thinks he was Torah observant. The issue then was whether or not Gentiles had to become Jews to be followers of Jesus/church people. Acts 15 shows they don’t have to become Jews; Gentiles are to be observant of the Torah at a Gentile level. Same today. Jesus was a hard man to follow; not all Jews — few in fact — followed him. For a variety of reasons. It was, however, a family feud and not a religious change. A major conclusion, though I can’t see that she says it quite this way, Jews as a whole did not reject Jesus; some did. One can’t blame Jews for rejecting Jesus. (That’s my reading of this chp.)

Deeper gravitas: Did the Jews kill Jesus? This theme is sometimes called the “longest hatred.” The badness of the rhetoric begins with Melito of Sardis (Jews were God-murderers) but it becomes stubbornly resistant to any change — for centuries Christians have painted Jews as those who killed Jesus. Chrysostom, Constantine, medieval (barbaric) laws, crusades, Spanish Inquisition, Martin Luther’s rantings and all the way to the Holocaust and Hitler.

Now the death of Jesus: she sees four themes — Jesus gave himself; God’s will; Rome killed him; Jewish leaders wanted him gone — all in an escalating condition of tension within Judaism and with Rome. Blaming the Jews is historically irresponsible; they are implicated in a complicated scene. Saying Jews killed Jesus is like saying white people killed ML King Jr (64). Furthermore, after probing the critical issues through some critical scholarship she concludes the Gospel evidence overstates Jewish involvement.

Rebekah, of course, denies any supersessionism in the Christian faith. She struggles with the apostle Paul, but finds some hope in Pam Eisenbaum and Mark Nanos. She observes many Christians read Paul through the dynamics of Martin Luther. Paul is not writing to Jewish believers but to Gentile believers. Gentiles and Jews make up the people of God, not in a zero-sum game but in an expansion of Israel.

One of her ways of framing a kind of universalism is this: “You can’t claim victory in Jesus while standing on the neck of your elder brother” (89).

She argues we need to embrace Jesus as fully Jewish, refocus on the kingdom of God (where and when God’s will is done), and here she suggests by focusing less on Jesus and more on social justice concerns, and by seeking a new heaven and a new earth (she has written about ecological concerns) — and here she moves into universalism of some sort. Jews, too, need to embrace Jewish followers of Jesus.

The book lacks sufficient attention to atonement, to the inaugurated/realized dimensions of eschatology in the christological claims of Jesus — as expounded well by DA Hagner, The Jewish Reclamation of Jesus, to the historic interpretations of the church (like the creed) … in short, the book falls short of an adequate study of the relations of Judaism and Christianity because it is designed by and for a more pluralist orientation, an orientation not held by the orthodox among Jews or Christians. I’m 100% in favor of reconciliation and mutual respect and civil dialogue, which this book exhibits, but the really difficult issues, the beliefs and practices and symbols and worldview that genuinely separate Judaism from Christianity, are by and large ignored in this book.

New Life Leadership and Worship Conference

Last updated on: October 3, 2013 at 8:03 am By Scot McKnight

Recently I was invited by pastor Brady Boyd at New Life Church in Colorado Springs — sitting beautifully under Pike’s Peak — to speak to their Leadership and Worship Conference. What a great time I had. Pastors and leaders conferences provide an abundance of goods: folks can connect with friends, can be stimulated and spurred on to new ministry ideas, and can spend time in prayer and worship away from the demands of a life of ministry.

So it is no surprise that New Life pulled out a wonderful time of worship and praise for each service, and I was privileged to be part of one of those services. The service was led by Jared Anderson. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: the church is flourishing today with gifted and edifying worship leaders, and Jared is now on my official list. Thanks much.

My plenary session was on Kingdom and Church, Church and Kingdom where I rolled out 12 theses to consider when it comes to kingdom mission and church mission in the world today. These theses are from my book on kingdom that I’m about to ship off to the publisher (Brazos). Then Brady and I engaged with one another and the audience about women in ministry, and I applaud Brady’s leadership at New Life in recognizing and encouraging the gifts of women. (Not all do this.) Finally we had a great Q&A session in a pastor’s luncheon, including questions about hot topics and seminary questions and ministry problems.

Sobering … Brady walked me through the shooting that occurred at New Life and we finished at the memorial for the two young girls whose lives the shooter took. The memorial is a symbol of hope in the resurrection. The only place quite like this for me is the memorial at Kent State.

I have many to thank, but I want to say an especial thanks to Brady and to Glenn Packiam for transporting me here and there… there are too many to name but this conference featured speaks across the spectrum and from different kinds of ministries and if you can get to it, attend. (Glenn, I love your worship album and I’ll be saying more about it on the blog.)

Baptists Talking Unity with Roman Catholics

Last updated on: September 28, 2013 at 6:24 am By Scot McKnight

For a number of years some Baptists and some Catholics discussed points of unity and diversity and came to a wonderful statement, called The Word of God in the Life of the Church: A Report of International Conversations between The Catholic Church and the Baptist World Alliance, 2006-2010.

I have clipped the introduction and the emboldened paragraphs of this statement from the Vatican site.

What do you think of efforts like these? Will they filter down to the local congregations? What does it take to get them to the congregations?

“The goal of these conversations is to respond to the prayer of our Lord Jesus Christ to his Father for his disciples ‘that they may all be one … that the world may believe’ (John 17:21). Facing the challenges of our world today, we believe this means that we should continue to explore our common ground in biblical teaching, apostolic faith and practical Christian living, as well as areas that still divide us, in order to:

1. Increase our mutual understanding, appreciation of each other and Christian charity towards each other;

2. Foster a shared life of discipleship within the communion of the triune God;

3. Develop and extend a common witness to Jesus Christ as the Saviour of the world and the Lord of all life;

4. Encourage further action together on ethical issues, including justice, peace and the sanctity of life, in accord with God’s purpose and to the praise of God’s glory.

We envisage that we can move towards the fulfilment of these aims by focusing on the theme: ‘The Word of God in the Life of the Church: Scripture, Tradition and Koinonia.’”

2. The theme which had been identified was handled in five annual meetings lasting a week in December each year, from 2006-2010:

(1) The Authority of Christ in Scripture and Tradition, hosted by Beeson Divinity School at Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama, USA.

(2) Baptism and Lord’s Supper/Eucharist as Visible Word of God in the Koinonia of the Church, hosted by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity in Rome, Italy.

(3) Mary in the Communion of the Church, hosted by the Baptist House of Studies at the Divinity School, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA.

(4) Oversight and Primacy in the Ministry of the Church, hosted by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity in Rome, Italy.

(5) A Final Meeting for gathering the harvest of the previous sessions, and working on a draft report, hosted by two Halls of the University of Oxford: Regent’s Park College (Baptist) and St. Benet’s Hall (Benedictine).

7. The One God exists from eternity in a life of relationship, in a communion (koinonia) of three Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ, the eternal Son, is the Word of God as God’s self-communication of self-giving love. Jesus Christ is thus God’s self-revelation who draws us into the communion of God’s own triune life and into communion (koinonia) with each other. This means that the Word of God in the church in the fullest sense is Christ himself who rules as Lord in the grace and power of the Spirit.

11. The church is thus to be understood as a koinonia (‘communion’, ‘participation’ or ‘fellowship’), which is grounded in the koinonia of the triune God. Believers are joined inkoinonia through participation in the communion of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. At the same time they are in koinonia through their participation in the community of believers gathered by Christ in his church: ‘…that you may have fellowship with us. And truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ’ (1 Jn. 1:3). While the phrase ‘communion ecclesiology’ is relatively recent, and is more frequently used by Catholic theologians than by Baptist ones, we both recognize it as expressing the heart of the nature of the church.

12. The principle of koinonia applies both to the church gathered in a local congregation and to congregations gathered together, whether in a regional association of churches (in the Baptist model) or in a local church (in the Catholic sense), or in still wider expressions of the church universal. We agree that the local fellowship does not derive from the universal church, nor is the universal a mere sum of various local forms, but that there is mutual existence and coinherence between the local and universal church of Christ.

16. The koinonia of the church may also be understood as a ‘covenant community’ although this language is less familiar to Catholics than to Baptists. ‘Covenant’ expresses at once both the initiative and prior activity of God in making relationship with his people through Christ, and the willing commitment of people to each other and to God. The church is a ‘gift’ in the sense that it is ‘gathered’ by Christ, and it ‘gathers’ in response to the call of Christ. The term ekklesia indicates an ‘assembly’ that is ‘called out’ by God. Calling the church a ‘fellowship of believers’ does not mean that the church is constituted only by faith: faith is always a response to the initiating grace of God. The fellowship or koinonia of the church itself is both a gift and calling, just as the unity of the church is both a gift of the Spirit and a task to be achieved.

20. Communion with the triune God and with the whole church of Christ is continually actualized in the Eucharist/Lord’s Supper. In the celebration, those participating are sharing communion not only with each other in the local congregation, but with the whole church of Christ in time and space. ‘Because there is one bread, all of us share in one body’ (1 Cor. 10:17). Because we hear the word of God in the eucharist/Lord’s Supper, this is a sharing in both word and sacrament (or ordinance) at the same time.

23. Local churches must be in visible and not only spiritual communion with each other, or else communion will lack fullness.

26. Local churches and congregations have communion with each other in order to hear the Word of God and find the ‘mind of Christ’ together.

37. The Bible is the divinely-authorized written norm for faith and practice, but this normativity of Scripture is principally located in the worship of the church, from which its life and mission grows. The Bible was canonized by and for the worshipping community, and it comprises those writings that are suitable for reading, preaching, and supplying the narrative content of other acts of worship that recall and represent (inanamnesis) the mighty acts of God in the past. Both Catholic and Baptist patterns of worship presuppose that sacred Scripture is the source of the story of the triune God in which worshippers participate.

41. ‘God is the author of Sacred Scripture’.[41] The church ‘accepts as sacred and canonical all the books of both the Old Testament and the New, in their entirety and with all their parts, in the conviction that they were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit…and therefore have God as their originator: on this basis they were handed on to the church’.[42]

46. Baptists and Catholics insist that the Old Testament and the New Testament together form a coherent story that requires a Christ-centred interpretation.

56. The Bible is the written embodiment of a living tradition (paradosis) which is handed down through the work of the Holy Spirit in the midst of the people of God. The source of this process of transmission is the living Word of God, Jesus Christ.

58. There is a certain ‘coinherence’ of Scripture and living tradition, in the sense of a mutual indwelling and interweaving of one in the other. They should not be considered as two separate and unrelated sources, but as two streams flowing together which issue from the same source, the self-revelation of the triune God in Christ.

63. Apostolic tradition, transmitted by the apostles, is handed on over the course of time by the church, which seeks ever to grow in understanding it more completely. It is to be distinguished from those subsequent traditions which are merely ecclesiastical. Only apostolic tradition is normative before, during and after the formation of the canonical Scriptures.

73. Sacraments/ordinances are signs through which God acts, visible signs of invisible grace or divine blessing.

77. The terms ‘sacrament’ and ‘ordinance’ express both God’s own gift of love (agape) and faith-filled human response. The sacrament/ordinance becomes the point of intersection between a divine commitment and a human commitment, where the priority belongs to God’s salvific act.

79. Christ must be central to any account of the meaning of the sacraments/ordinances and of their relationship to the church.

81. There is a coinherence between sacraments/ordinances and the preaching of the Word of God.

83. Baptism and the Eucharist/Lord’s Supper are central to the life of the church.

85. The sacraments/ordinances are experiences of encounter with Christ that transform the lives of those who enter into these moments of worship by the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. Both Catholics and Baptists affirm the full freedom of God in relation to the sacraments/ordinances, and both traditions emphasize that no experience of salvation is fully whole without the free and loving entrance of the believer into the covenantal fellowship of Christ’s church, for there can be no experience of grace apart from faith.

91. The essential relationship between faith and the sacrament/ordinance involves the faith of the individual believer and the community.

93. We baptize in obedience to Christ’s command: ‘Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you’ (Matt 28:19-20). Baptism has its foundation and meaning in the doctrines of the Trinity and Christology. Through baptism we are brought more deeply into the communion of the triune God, and we share in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ.

97. Faith is always necessary for baptism.

101. Initiation into Christ and his church is a process wider than the act of baptism itself. We can work towards a mutual recognition of the different forms that initiation takes among us, as an entire ‘journey’ of faith and grace.

107. Baptism is administered, with water, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and is a once-for-all event.

109. In baptism we are united with other believers in the church of Christ, ‘for in the one Spirit we are all baptized into one body’ (1 Cor 12:13).

113. Baptism signifies forgiveness of sins and new birth.

116. The Eucharist/Lord’s Supper[101] is essential to the church. We celebrate the Eucharist/Lord’s Supper in obedience to Jesus’ command, ‘Do this in memory of me’ (1 Cor 11:24, Lk 22:19).

119. The Bible must play a formative role in the liturgy of the Eucharist or in the order of worship of the Lord’s Supper.

121. There is a trinitarian pattern in the order of worship of the Eucharist/Lord’s Supper. In it the church prays to the Father in thanksgiving (eucharistia) as Jesus did, recalling God’s acts in the history of salvation; it remembers, celebrates and participates (anamnesis) in the death and resurrection of the Son; and it calls upon the Holy Spirit (epiclesis) to make the presence of Christ real to his disciples.

125. Christ is ‘really present’ to his disciples in the celebration of the Eucharist/Lord’s Supper.

130. There is a strongly ethical and eschatological dimension to the Eucharist/Lord’s Supper.

133. Mary has a significant place in the New Testament. She was a witness to the saving acts of Christ from his conception and birth to his death and the giving of the Holy Spirit after his resurrection. Chosen by God to be the mother of the Saviour, Mary deserves to be honoured and called ‘blessed’ (Luke 1: 42, 48) by all Christians in all times and all places.Beliefs about Mary should be rooted in Scripture, warranted by Scripture, and not contradicted by Scripture.

135. Mary belongs to the Jewish people. She stands in a long line of those expecting the Messiah, at the point where Old and New Testaments meet [Gal 4: 4; Lk 2: 25-32]. Mary has a place in the genealogy of the Messiah [Mt 1: 16] and among the holy women who kept alive the hope of Israel’s salvation. Mary may be called ‘Daughter of Israel’ in that she is the mother of the one called the Son of David and insofar as she welcomes the Saviour with joy and he takes up his dwelling within her. [See Zeph 3:14-17; Joel 2:21-27; Zech 2:15, 9:9-10; Lk 1: 28-33; Lk 3:31.]

137. A number of Old Testament passages may be interpreted as referring to Mary. Isaiah 7:14 is to be recognized as a prophetic text fulfilled in Mary’s conceiving of Christ (Matt. 1:22-23), and many Christian readers of the Old Testament find an implicit reference to Mary in ‘the woman’ of Gen. 3:15 whose son, the promised Messiah, triumphs over the Evil One.

139. The Gospels present Mary as a ‘hearer of the Word’ who responded to God’s gracious initiative as an active and faith-filled disciple of her divine Son. Mary is one who heard and obeyed the word. (Lk 1:38) She ‘treasured’ and pondered the Word in her heart. (Lk 1:29; 2:19.51) As a disciple, Mary was a woman of faith. She met the divine call with faith (Lk 1:45; 11:28) and made a complete gift of herself to God in her cry, ‘let it be so’ (Lk 1:38). Mary grew in faith and understanding. She was not merely a passive instrument in God’s hand, but was actively engaged, freely consenting to God’s gracious election and eternal purpose. Mary’s response to God was itself the result of grace.

140. Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. The virginal conception of Jesus is clearly attested in the Gospels according to Matthew (1:18-25) and Luke (1:26-38). Matthew (1:22-23) interprets the virginal conception as the fulfillment of prophecy (Isaiah 7:14). The doctrine that Jesus was ‘conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary’ is found in the Apostles’ Creed and was added to the Nicene Creed at the Council of Constantinople (381).

As a sign of both Jesus’ divine origin and his true humanity, Mary’s virginal motherhood safeguards Christological orthodoxy. This doctrine first of all concerns the person and identity of Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God who took human flesh from the Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit. It is a sign of Jesus’ divine origin insofar as the Virgin Mary conceived him by the power of the Holy Spirit without the intervention of a human father. Jesus’ birth of the Virgin Mary is also proof of his true humanity, in that he is born of a human mother. The virgin birth is an eschatological sign, that is, a sign that God is with us (Mt 1:23; 28:20), that the Messiah has come, and that the new age has begun.

143. Mary is properly named the Theotokos or ‘God-bearer’. The term indicates that she is the mother of the eternal Son of God according to his humanity. The title has a basis in Scripture (‘the mother of my Lord’, Luke 1:43) and safeguards the identity of Christ: whatever is said about Mary, including Theotokos, derives from what is said about Christ. Mary is the ‘God-bearer’ inasmuch as she is the human mother of the Son of God incarnate. To call Mary ‘Mother of God’ does not imply that Mary is divine or the source of Christ’s divine nature, and certainly not that she is Mother of God the Father or of God the Holy Trinity.

146. Among all the women of the Bible, Mary has a special calling in the plan of salvation, but like every Christian, she too was elected, justified, and sanctified by God’s grace (Rom 8:29-30). According to Scripture, ‘There is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all.’ (1 Tim 2:5-6) All, therefore, are in need of redemption by Christ. Mary too has been redeemed by Christ, her Saviour (Lk 1:47), by grace.

150. Mary is a model of discipleship in faithful listening and obedience to God’s Word. Ordinary Christians are in solidarity with her as the first New Testament disciple.

154. Mary is not only a member, but also a representative figure, of the church of Christ in being specially chosen to bear witness to the Lord. Her faithfulness along with others at the cross represents the faithfulness of the church.

156. The prayer of Christians always shares in the greater intercession of Christ as Son to the Father (1 Jn 2:1), exemplified in his life and continuing in his exaltation (Heb 7:25). As the Apostle Paul puts it, we say ‘Amen’ to God through Christ (2 Cor 1:20) and so we pray to the Father through the Son and in the Holy Spirit. We pray like this in the company of all the saints who are praying with Christ, those who are alive and those who have gone before us. So the church prays with Mary (Acts 1:14) and learns to pray like Mary in the communion of saints. For instance, Mary’s prophetic canticle, the ‘Magnificat’ (Lk 1:46-55), expresses the church’s song of praise and thanksgiving to the Lord its Saviour, its preferential love for the poor and lowly, and its mission to establish God’s reign of justice.

159. Because Mary always witnesses to Christ, the representations of Mary which are received in particular cultures are subject to the gospel as the norm which is centred on Christ, and to which Scripture attests.

162. Christ is the head of the church, her founder, creator and cornerstone. The church owes her whole existence to Christ and he continues to be her ‘shepherd and guardian (episkopos)’ (1 Pet 2:25). He nourishes and sustains his church with the proclamation of the Gospel and the celebration of the sacraments/ordinances. Through these means, by the power of the Holy Spirit, the community of the church grows in her communion with God, who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

165. Episkope (oversight) is a gift of Christ to the church to enable the ministry of the whole people of God. Christ calls the whole people of God to share in his ministry as prophet, priest and king. The episkope of some is a gift of Christ to enable and equip the body of Christ as a whole (Ephesians 4: 11-13).

168. Our differing patterns of episkope seek to be faithful to Scripture and to the apostolic tradition.

173. Episkope is exercised in personal, collegial and communal ways in the church. These ways are not exclusive to one another but bound together in a network of dynamic relationships which together make up overall episkope in the church.

176. Episkope is primarily exercised in the local or particular church, but always in communion with the wider church.

179. Personal episkope is established by Christ for the good of the church.

182. The ministry of episkope or oversight, the roots for which can be traced to the New Testament, is a service which includes as one of its principal purposes the promotion of the unity of the Christian community.

184. Jesus’ prayer ‘that all may be one so that the world may believe’ (John 17:21) sets out the common vocation of all Christians to be one, and so to conform themselves to the will of their Lord. This unity is both spiritual and visible.

186. The unity of the church at all levels reflects its apostolicity, which is expressed both by faith and by ministry. The faith of the church is apostolic by being faithful to revelation as contained in Scripture and handed down through the ages. The ministry is apostolic in so far as it hands on the apostolic faith (2 Tim 2:2; 1 Cor 11:23, 15:3-5) and seeks to fulfill the missionary mandate contained in each of the Gospels (Mt 28:16-20; Mk 16:14-18; Lk 24:44-49; Jn 20:21). Scripture itself attests that the church is founded upon the apostles and prophets (Eph 2:20, 3:5), yet emphasizes that the one foundation is Jesus himself (1 Cor 3:11).

200. The historical failures of the past among both Baptists and Catholics must be addressed, with due repentance and appropriate action in the present.

The Scandal of the Evangelical Memory, by Geoff Holsclaw (pt 3)

Last updated on: September 21, 2013 at 3:39 pm By Scot McKnight

Scandal of the Evangelical Memory, Part 3 of 5

Geoff, teaching pastor at Life on the Vine Church and a colleague of mine at Northern Seminary, participates as well in Missio Alliance.

Falsely accused, John Anderton is a fugitive trying to figure out the truth behind a crime he hasn’t even committed yet. In 2054, Washington, D.C. has been murder free for six years because the controversial “PreCrime Police Force”, using three mutant-humans who see the future, catches suspects before they commit the crime (Minority Report, 2002).

Anderton is searching for the “minority report”, a “memory of the future” that is discarded when only two of the three pre-cognitive humans agree about the future crime. Hoping this information will prove his innocence, Anderton kidnaps Agatha (the only female of the three precogs and usually the one offering the “minority report”) and hacks her brain for the lost data. Will this information ultimately vindicate him, and is he destined to live out the future? And is there something going on even bigger, and farther back, that Anderton knows little about?

In the same manner we must look for the “minority report” within our evangelical memory, hoping to escape a destiny others have already assigned for us. In the previous two posts (part one and part two) we began debunking the “majority report” (or “implanted memories”). Now we must move even farther back to recover our true evangelical memory.

Classical Evangelicalism

It is difficult to know where and when to trace the lineage of evangelicalism, but somewhere within 17^th Century Continental Pietism and British Puritanism seems best.[1] But with historian Douglas Sweeney, classical evangelicalism is best describes as Protestantism with a “revivalist twist.”[2] And this “revivalist twist” gives evangelicalism its radicalism and reformistorientation. So let’s look at these three R’s (revival, radical, reform).

John Wesley (1703-1791) is famous for his stirring conversion (when his heart was “strangely warmed”) at the Aldersgate Street meeting of the Moravians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravian_Church ). After this conversion he coaxed famed preacher George Whitefield (1714-1770) to minister in the British colonies in America, and Whitefield returned the favor by coaxing Wesley to leave the halls of the church and preach in the fields. Wesley and Whitefield, along with Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) and many others, fostered transatlantic and transdenominational revival which was innovative in its practices and reform oriented in its goals (not just reformation of the church but society too).

The revivalism practiced by Wesley, Whitefield, and Edwards radicalized the institutional church in both its theology and practice (and ‘radical’ rather than ‘liberal’ is the proper term here because the revivalists were in no way preaching about a deistic God or other such doctrines coming from the English or French Enlightenment which at that time would be properly ‘liberal’). These leaders committed “to be more vile” in the eye of the church in order to save the lost. This was the First Great Awakening, and was the beginning of the “classical evangelical” consensus that prioritized mission over institution, and practice over doctrine, even while not abandoning the latter.[3]

Majority Report

But there is a “majority report” we must contend with to properly understand this “Protestantism with a revivalist twist”, especially leading into the Second Great Awakening. But instead of relying on my personal experience of such things (which is probably under suspicion by now), let me enlist Sweeney’s account:

As the story usually goes, the First Great Awakening was, in Edwards’s terms, “a surprising work of God” that was both preached and understood in very Calvinistic terms. The Second Great Awakening, by contrast, was an orchestrated event whose theology was Arminian in that it stressed the roles that sinners play in effecting their own conversions. Inasmuch as this story is usually told by Calvinist partisans—who sorely regret the role of Arminians in the history of evangelicalism—it is plotted as a tragedy, one that accounts for most of the problems plaguing the movement ever since…[In reality] the Second Great Awakening proved tremendously diverse [and] occurred in three major theaters.[4]

Besides the fact that the First Great Awakening was not dominated by Calvinism, it should be noted that by the time of the Second Great Awakening, half the country was attending either Methodist or Baptist congregations (which were none existent a hundred years before). The three major theaters of this Awakening were the New England Calvinists, the New York and Midwestern Arminians,[5] and the proto-Pentecostal camp meetings in the near-South (Kentucky/Tennessee) and frontier regions marked by signs and wonders, dancing and the “jerks” (a shivering/shaking type of being “slain in the Spirit”). The diversity among and continuity between the First and Second Great Awakenings should be emphasized rather than perceived doctrinal shifts.

The Minority Report

But the “minority report” that I would like to file is that “classical evangelicalism” as a “Protestantism with a revivalist twist” is not best thought as a conservative movement within a liberal society. Rather it was initially, as all revivals are, corrective of mainstream church life andcreative in its practices, and these corrections and creations were ordered toward the reform of society. This is the unity of revivalism, radicalism, and reformism.

Let me mention the reformist impulse a bit more with two examples.

Abolition: Not to overstate the case, but abolition in American and Britain was linked to the egalitarian impulse fostered by evangelical revivalism.[6] Revivalist likeCharles G. Finney were active abolitionists. While Finney is often celebrated (or maligned) for his “new measures” in promoting revival, most forget that one essential element for promoting a revival is faithfulness in seeking the “reformation of mankind” and a failure to do so causes the departure of the Spirit of God.[7] And I already mentioned earlier that the first president of Wheaton College was a staunch abolitionist. Countless abolitionist activists were recruited to social reform through their revivalist conversion.
Feminism: The same biblical exegesis that overturned the “biblical argument” for slavery also applied to patriarchal arguments, and were proto-Pentecostal in reference to Acts 2, the filling of the Spirit, and equality between the sexes. The classic example of this comes from prayer revivalist Phoebe Palmer’s The Promise of the Father (1859), which was a pneumatologically charged, Holiness defense of women ministering alongside men. American Holiness-Revivalist, Hannah Whitall Smith (1832-1911), influential in starting the British Keswick Convention (1875-present), regularly gave bible studies on “God as our Mother”.[8] Claiming these developments as proto-liberal is exactly to be biased by a conservative/liberal paradigm, rather than seeing radical revivalism leading naturally to social reform.[9]

During the Second Great Awakening, revivalist conversion lead seamlessly to social reform, all within a continued radical practice/theology (neither liberal nor conservative). Add to this the proto-Pentecostal impulses of these revivals specifically, and the Holiness movement generally, and we have a very different report on what a “classical evangelical” was before the advent of fundamentalism and the modernist controversy.

The Point: Radical, Revival, Reform

Revivalism, Radicalism, and Reform were staples of the classical evangelical consensus that was transatlantic and transdenominational. Especially during the Second Great Awakening, predominantly Wesleyan-Holiness revivalists worked toward the abolition of slavery and the equality of women, and laid the groundwork for the rise of Pentecostalism. A classical evangelical, then, would not be scandalized by the seamless union of prophetic social reformand revivalistic preaching for conversion.

The Problem: Reversal?

We must remember this “minority report” as we confront the disturbing issue of why the evangelical church, for the most part, abandoned the Civil Rights Movement and 20^th century feminism. Why this great reversal after the great revivals?

In Minority Report, John Anderton was looking to vindicate himself by finding the forgotten information, but he found none. All three pre-cogs predicted that he would indeed commit the murder. But in the process he learns why he was set up to commit the murder in the first place.

And in the same way we must beware of whitewashing evangelical history. The “set up” of these great reversals was laid by a Christendom optimism (expressed by both Calvinists and Holiness churches) that hoped to Christianize (Protestantize!) America as God’s “City on a Hill”. And when these “Great Revivals” didn’t pan out as expected the opportunity was laid for a “Great Reversal”. To this we will return in next week’s post.

The question for us now is, Are we against being ‘set up’ for another Great Reversal?

Geoff Holsclaw is a native Californian who now calls Chicago home. Wonderfully married to Cyd (with two boys, Soren and Tennyson), he has served for 10 years as a co-pastor at Life on the Vine. He recently co-authored, Prodigal Christianity, with David Fitch, and is affiliate professor of theology at Northern Seminary. You can follow him on Twitter, Facebook, orYouTube.

[1] Douglas Sweeney, The American Evangelical Story (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), pp. 30-36. See also, for the theological contributions of the movements, Roger Olson, Pocket History of Evangelical Theology (Downers Grove: IVP, 2007), pp. 22-31, 38-46.
[2] Douglas Sweeney, The American Evangelical Story, pp. 24-25.
[3] See Sweeney’s about how even the Calvinist Jonathan Edward was being attacked by “old school Calvinistic” about his revivalistic work (The American Evangelical Story, pp. 46-49, 58-60). I mention this to show that the real differences were not between Calvinist and the Wesleyan revivalists, but between all the revivalist and all those who opposed them.
[4] Douglas Sweeney, The American Evangelical Story, p. 66.
[5] Sweeney tips his Calvinist hand a little by calling these revivalists “inconsistent Calvinists” (The American Evangelical Story, p. 70) rather than focusing on the more ecclesially radical and socially reforming aspects of their work.
[6] Donald Dayton, “Piety and Radicalism: Ante-Bellum Social Evangelicalism in the U.S.,” in From the Margins: A Celebration of the Theological Work of Donald W. Dayton (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2007). Dayton notes the early arguments along these lines of Gilbert Barnes (The Anti-Slavery Impulse, 1830-1844 [New York: Appleton-Century, 1933]) Anne Cl. Loveland, (“Evangelicalism and ‘Immediate Emancipation’ in American Anti-Slavery,” Journal of Southern History 32 [May 1966], 172-188), and John L. Hammond (“Revival Religion and Anti-Slavery Politics,” American Sociological Review [1974], 175-86).
[7] See the letter by Finney exhorting ministers not to forget the work of reform in seeking revival in Donald Dayton’s Discovering an Evangelical Heritage (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1976), 20-24.
[8] Donald Dayton, “A Neglected Tradition of Biblical Feminist” in From the Margins: A Celebration of the Theological Work of Donald W. Dayton (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2007) (which is a collection of previously published article, with added responses by theologians). See also “The Evangelical Roots of Feminism” in Discovering an Evangelical Heritage.
[9] “The churches that have most fully incorporated women into their life and ministry have not been the ‘liberal’ or ‘mainline’ churches, but instead those bodies that lie most directly in the wake of pre-Civil War abolition revivalism” (Dayton, “Piety and Radicalism: Ante-Bellum Social Evangelicalism in the U.S.,” in From the Margins, p. 38).

Local Church Nepotism

Last updated on: September 13, 2013 at 7:05 pm By Scot McKnight

By Michelle Van Loon

What do you have for wisdom in this area?

The pastor’s wife leads the worship ministry at their small congregation. Or…the pastor’s son-in-law becomes the youth minister.

It’s only natural that family members serve together at a local congregation, isn’t it?

Even some of Jesus’ first disciples were brothers. The prayer and ideal is of families sharing an active, engaged faith. Wouldn’t the logical conclusion of this shared faith be shared ministry?

Yes. And no.

Did you know that the word nepotism has its roots in medieval church practice? One pope even went so far as to appoint his nephews, ages 14 and 16, as cardinals.

A husband-wife team ministering together can be a beautiful thing. It can model a healthy marriage and the joy that comes from serving together. It can go terribly wrong when the relationship puts a stranglehold on ministry growth, for example, a pastor’s wife who runs the women’s ministry with an iron fist in order to ensure her position is never challenged. Who is there to remove the pastor’s wife from her role if she doesn’t do a good job?

We attended a church that had a pair of brothers-in-law and a set of sisters on the paid staff of 7. Further complicating the situation was the fact that one of the pastor’s kids was dating the child of one of the relatives. The elder board at the church included relatives of these relatives. Disclosure here – this nepotism-heavy arrangement included me as I was a part-time staffer and my husband was an elder. When I started getting a paycheck as part of my service to the church, both Bill and I were pretty naive about how these interconnected blood relationships would affect how decisions were made at the church.

It didn’t take long to discover that not all staff meetings happened in the church building. Some also happened at family birthday parties and during vacations. Plans were hatched and decisions were made in the context of these tight family bonds. I learned through the painful tutorial of experience at the church that blood ties had a powerful insulating quality if someone was toxic in his or her ministry role. Protecting the family was a more powerful motivation than protecting the sheep.

Even with that horrible negative example, I believe there is great power in family doing ministry together. It can be an amazing, countercultural expression of shalom as long as the focus stays on the kingdom, not on tribe.

Has your experience with family members heading ministry roles in a church been positive or negative? Does your church have a policy limiting family from paid staff positions, or a history of encouraging the practice?

*Note: This is an adaptation of a post that originally ran in February, 2010.