ELEPHANT IN THE CHURCH: WHERE ARE TODAY'S DISCIPLES?
By Steve Behlke
January 28, 2010
More than a few have asked me to post regarding our church’s current sermon series on the Elephants in the Church. Elephants refer to some obvious problem in the church that everyone knows is there, we’re all aware of the problem, but nobody mentions it; no one really deals with it.
Here’s are some thoughts from the first sermon.
MAKE DISCIPLES
In light of Jesus’ Great Commission to the church, His intention for us to be and make disciples, the biggest elephant in the church may well be the lack of disciples in the church today.
Where are those churches that are producing disciples?
DISCIPLES! NOT JUST BORN AGAIN CHRISTIANS.
By disciples, we mean those born again Christians, those who trust Jesus for eternal life and intentionally study to learn from Jesus, in order to obey Jesus, in order to follow Jesus Christ as a rule of life.
That’s a disciple.
DISCIPLES FOLLOW JESUS BY OBEYING HIM!
“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you.” (Matthew 28:19-20)
In John 8:30-32 Jesus mentioned to those who had newly trusted Him and thus were saved, that they must adhere to His word and so be His disciples.
“As He spoke these things, many came to believe in Him. So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, ‘If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.’” (John 8:30-32)
So not only would they be His disciples but they will experience the truth and true freedom in Christ.
DISCIPLES OBEY JESUS BY LOVING OTHERS: SAME THING.
In the Gospel of John 13:33-34, Jesus gave his disciples, those who trusted and followed him, a new command: "Love one another as I have loved you." He said this would show the world that we are His disciples. Disciples are those who obey Jesus, primarily through our love for one another.
A few big things emerge from all of this:
ONE: OBEDIENCE IS A LOVE WORD.
Yet it is a discipleship word. But obedience is a love word, not a compliance word. It is not a “ought to” word.
God wants us to obey Him out of love. “If you love me,” Jesus says, “you will obey me.”
TWO: LOVE FLOWS FROM US AS A RESPONSE TO GOD'S LOVE FOR US.
God is the initiator. We don’t love in order to be loved. “We love because God first loved us.” Love for God, love which obeys, flows as a response to God’s love for us.
So, obedience is a love word. Love obeys. Love submits. Love sacrifices. Love serves.
So the heart of discipleship to Jesus Christ is love.
And love flows from a heart that knows it is loved.
A disciple, one who follows and obeys Jesus, is one who first experiences, through trust and submission, God’s love in Christ.
Therefore, we must first learn to be loved by God, to submit to His love, through humility we must learn to receive God’s love. This is part of being a disciple.
THREE: DISCIPLES LOVE GOD IN THE WAYS HE EXPLAINS HE WANTS TO BE LOVED
Again, "If you love me," Jesus says, do this. Do what? “If you love me, obey me.” That’s God’s love language. Obey me.
And His supreme command, the most repeated command to those who love Him, is that we love one another as Christ has loved us.
HOW TO RECOGNIZE IF I'M UNDER THE LAW
Dr. Steve Behlke
November 10, 2009
Romans 7:4 Therefore, my brothers, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.
In our church, we spent last week's sermon on Romans 7:1-6. Paul says Christians have been made to die to the Law, and that we have been released from the Law, and so we're no longer under the Law or it's jurisdiction, in order that we might be united wholly to Jesus Christ.
I.e., We are released from the Law—and it's rewards and penalties—to relate to God exclusively through Jesus Christ.
In spite of this awesome truth, many Christians, in their personal experience remain under the Law, which hinders knowing God and His transforming love through faith in Christ alone. Dying to the Law hardly even registers on the list of gospel realities for many of us. And if it does, few Christians imagine that they themselves are legalists or under the Law.
Gosh, even the Pharisees didn’t see themselves as legalists! So we probably don’t have great objectivity in this matter. How then can we know if we’re living under the Law or not?
Since Romans 5-8 are so focused on our identity the answer must be tied to our sense of identity and worth. Here are some questions we'd be wise to answer,
-
Do you base your sense of identity on your performance—on how well you do spiritual things?
-
Do you associate God’s favor with your behavior? "If only I do this then God will do that."
-
After you sin are you prone to self-loathing? "O I just hate myself!#@@"
-
When you sin do you rationalize it, minimize it, or blame others for it?
-
Do you have a holier-than-thou attitude toward those who sin in ways that you aren't even tempted to sin?
-
Here's a biggie: Can you admit your sins, even to safe people, or do you put every effort into hiding your sin?
Even though it's hard to be honest, even with ourselves, how did you fare? See each one of these may show that our sense of identity may not be in Christ but in the Law.
We have died with Christ to the Law. In Paul's illustration, Romans 7:1-4, we are released from the Law through Christ's death to be relationally united—married—to Christ. Paul, in Romans 10:4, adds that "Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to everyone who believes."
The point is that God wants us to relate to Him according to His grace and not our performance, filled with every confidence in Him and not in ourselves, knowing that we are loved and holy and accepted because of God's grace in Christ, not if we behave ourselves.
In this relationship, free from the Law's accusations and threats and condemnations, but in this grace relationship with Christ where God's love is promised according to His faithfulness and not our performance, trust builds.
Love is experienced.
Sins take a backseat.
We learn to depend on Christ for all things.
And assured of His love, not having to work for it, not losing it when we fail, but assured of God's love in Christ, we are freed from obsessing over our sins and fixing ourselves in order to regain intimacy with God, we are freed to be loved and to love others as Christ loves us.
CHRISTIANS, SEX AND SUFFERING
Steve Behlke
April 4, 2009
Many in our church are currently purchasing care-giving kits to benefit those who are suffering with HIV Aids in Africa. Thanks, Pamela.
So it is particularly interesting that I recently read a charge that Christians don't care about human suffering. In fact, the charge is made that Christians care more in their opposition against "sex outside-of-marriage" more than they oppose suffering on a global scale.
The clues to this are said to lie in the countries of Aids-stricken Africa.
In much of Africa, many self-sacrificing and compassionate Christians are teaching one thing in the fight against HIV Aids: sexual abstinence. I believe this is a good thing. Sexual abstinence is still the surest way to protect individuals and communities from Aids and other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).
I believe, in fact, that Christian opposition to suffering is a great argument for Abstinence Education in Africa. Christians might counter those who oppose Abstinence Education with the charge, "For us, it appears immoral to oppose Abstinence Education in light of the tragic human suffering that it could help to prevent."
While sexual abstinence, if practiced, would surely help to stem the tide of Aids in Africa, the real problem is that not everyone will practice what Christians preach.
So, here's where we're at: Abstinence is an effective way to tide future suffering and shouldn't be discounted by anyone who opposes human suffering.
Yet, if young, single Africans don't immediately and perfectly choose abstinence as a way of life, or if husbands do not choose sexual faithfulness to his own wife, even after compassionate and rational argument, what then? Does our compassion run out? Are Christians pro-abstinence only? Or would it actually be wrong to give condoms to married couples, for instance?
Here is the question: Is it immoral for Christians to be pro-abstinence and also to distribute condoms among Aids decimated tribes and villages who may not value the sexual abstinence message? Or can it be argued that condom distribution among these villages also merits a moral argument: the argument of compassion, the argument against human suffering.
Particularly in light of the Aids epidemic in much of Africa, if Christians oppose condom distribution, is the charge fair that Christians oppose sex outside-of-marriage more than they oppose human suffering on a large, national level?
I do not believe that Christ-formed Christians hate the notion of people having unmarried sex more than they hate the fact that people are suffering from the heartwrenching plague of Aids. But this may, inadvertently, be the very image that we portray on this and other social issues. So let us think critically on these issues and offer the world informed, compassionate, and truly wise alternative.
WHY SAME SEX ATTRACTIONS?
Steve Behlke
March 31, 2009
I haven't written a blog for a long time. I haven't even read a blog for a long time.
Of all the things to start a blog on, why come back with this topic? It's not my greatest passion. It's not even a popular topic at all. In fact, it's almost a lose-lose subject to tackle.
But I had a conversation with someone this morning and she said that I should write down some of the things that I mentioned to her.
Hence, this blog. In it want to present what I believe is a Christian perspective on same-sex attraction. Christian or atheist, gay or straight, you may not agree, and I solicit your comments.
First, let me say, I'm not an authority on homosexuality or on the GLBT community. Hardly.
I do, however, consider myself a Christian theologian with a pastoral heart who has made the choice to live for Jesus in an area (Northampton, MA) that gives proud endorsement to the GLBT lifestyle.
As one of the spiritual leaders of a Christian community made up of loving people who have friends, family members, co-workers and neighbors who also happen to be gay or lesbian, this is an issue that we need to address.
The question: Why do certain people have same-sex attractions?
There are at least three popular views:
First, our gay and lesbian friends say being gay or lesbian is not a choice. Obviously, whether or not one engages in same-sex sexual activity is a choice, but this is a different matter. According to those with same-sex attraction, the attraction itself is not a choice but it is something they were born with. They insist that there was no choice in the matter just as I insist that I never debated or voted or decided to prefer a woman over a man. I just do!!!
A second view is that science has proven that there is a so-called "gay gene" with which gay and lesbian people are born. But the last I studied on this matter, it is still a highly disputed theory, not just in the theological community but also in the scientific community.
A third common view is the typical Christian reaction to these two views, that having a same-sex attraction is a personal choice.
Here's my understanding: Same sex-attraction is not a choice, it's an "attraction."
We do not choose who or what we are attracted to; desires and attractions are just that way. Desire and attraction almost seems to choose us. They are not rational decisions that we make.
For example, I didn't choose to be attracted to the beautiful woman that I now call my wife. I simply was attracted to her when I saw her. I was attracted to her long dark hair, her beautiful face, her fun-loving personality, and her incredible joy. I didn't make the choice that I would be attracted to her or to any of these qualities she possessed, I just was.
Am I saying that gay and lesbians are all born that way? I'm not saying that. I just don't see where the Bible says this cannot be so.
The argument waged by the other views goes like this: "If a person is born a certain way, then it is good and God's will that he or she live this way."
So, the GLBT community says, "We were born this way, it's our nature, thus it is only right that we live this way. Since God made us this way, God wants us to live this way."
To which the stereotypical Christian responds, "No, God doesn't want you to live this way. Therefore, you could not possibly have been born this way."
But I do not accept the first premise that just because one is born with a certain tendency it must be God's will for one to endulge that tendency. I was born with a proclivity to be selfish, greedy, proud, rebellious and stubborn. I do not claim that these are good or God-glorifying. They are corruptions to my nature, from which I seek freedom through Christ from their power and their consequences.
The question is, can a person be born with a same-sex attraction? Whatever the final answer is, I simply don't see the Bible's argument against this possibility.
To the Bible-believing people who want to follow Jesus and who happen to be reading this, we'll do well to remember the biblical teaching that every person since Adam and Eve first blew it in the Garden has been born broken, disconnected from God, and sinful in character. The Bible is clear on this. Jesus was clear on this.
We should also recall the biblical teaching that sin, which we're all born with, is a corruption of good and it affects mankind in every way (intellect, reason, will, desire, ability, passion, etc.). The concept of total depravity does not mean that all people are totally evil but that every aspect of our nature is affected to a degree by sin.
Bear in mind also, that all people are born with these ravaging affects of sin woven into our very nature. The Bible calls it the flesh (sarxe), also translated by some as sin nature.
Now then, if one subscribes to such a theology of human sinfulness and believes the corruption of sin has permeated each person's will, intellect, reason and desires, it is easy to see how sin has also affected people's sexual drive, sexual boundaries, and even some people's sexual identities and sexual attractions and preferences.
It really shouldn't surprise us that people are actually born with tendencies and proclivities and attractions that aren't holy, natural, or traditionally moral. It's a basic Christian doctrine.
Finally, in the pursuit of a biblical and rational reason why some people have a same-sex attraction, we should not overlook the power of outside influences, as well as, human reactions to those influences. I particularly have in mind our God-given needs and what happens in the human soul when those needs go unmet.
Regarding unmet needs: We all have needs for love and acceptance and security and approval and attention and protection. What happens when these basic human needs are not met by loving others? And what about the way we often react to our unmet needs, how might this affect one's deepest identity?
Take, for instance, a young woman who yearns, rightly so, for loving acceptance, affirmation, and attention of parents or male peers. But, say she finds and feels that her parents ignore her or guys find her unattractive. And, say, she is given a sense of great worth and affection from a woman who does love and accept her. She may not be born with a same-sex attraction but could it be nurtured through unmet needs and ungodly but very human reactions to her unmet needs?
In other instances, the need for affection and love and attention which goes unmet, may be misconstrued for a need for physical intimacy that is provided by a caring person of the same sex.
Regarding sins committed against us: Equally huge is the trauma that takes place in our fragile hearts when we are sinned against, particularly as young children, by those who are meant to love and bless and protect us? And what about the way we can so wrongly, so confusedly, react when we are sinned against?
Take, for instance, a young boy who might have been molested by a male family member. This is no fault of his own. This is a terrible evil perpetrated against him. If we're not careful or carefully shepherded through this process, this sin inflicted against him, huge as it is, may open him up to all sorts of unhealthy reactions. He may react with thoughts of shame, denial, self-loathing, revenge, guilt or rage. His entire "identity" and sexual behavior may be changed through this one incident and his response to it. The sins of others and our own reactions toward them have a powerful affect on our lives.
In conclusion, it is not unbiblical to assume that some people could actually be born with same-sex attractions. It may or may not be the case. But the fact is that our fallen nature affects us in many ways, why not here too.
It may also be the case that same-sex attraction is less a matter of nature and more a matter of nurture. Unmet needs; unhealthy reactions to our deepest needs that go unmet; the sins that others commit against us; and our own unhealthy reactions to the pain and evils that we innocently suffer at their hands, all may lead to a crisis of confusion in one's sexual identity and sexual preferences.
More to come if this is of interest and if it doesn't turn into a firestorm. But first let me hear from you.
Please refrain from hate speech of any kind in your responses toward the GLBT community or toward the Christian community. Such responses will not be posted.
Christ gave Himself for us; Christ gave Himself to us
Steve Behlke,
Sept 13, 2008
In Galatians 1:4 and 2:20, the apostle Paul makes two Gospel assertions upon which being saved and spiritually growing — really, the whole Christian life — hang.
The first is that Christ gave Himself for us,
Gal 1:4 "Christ gave Himself for our sins so that He might rescue us from this present evil age."
Christ gave Himself for us. This is fundamental to understanding the Gospel of God's grace. God did it all. Christ did everything.
Our sins separated us from God but God-in-Christ gave Himself for our sins. Through Jesus' work on the cross believers are forgiven, holy and brought into union with God.
The second assertion is that Christ gave Himself to us,
Gal 2:20 "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me."
The Gospel includes both of these realities!
Having no ability to merit pardon, to birth new life, to graft ourselves into God's people or to draft ourselves into God's Kingdom, Christ gave Himself for us, for our forgiveness, for our redemption, for our justification.
Having no ability to change our hearts, to transform our character, to make ourselves any more holy and loving and Christly, Christ gave Himself to us, to energize, transform, and empower our sanctification from the depth of our souls.
This is grace, Christ gave Himself for us and Christ gave Himself to us.
Grace is not some inert thing that God gives us. It is not mere kindness and pardon. Grace is also God's sovereign activity. Grace is the Spirit's own doing. Grace is Christ-in-action, God personally acting in us, toward us, for us, and through us.
So it is to be understood that we are saved by grace — Christ's sovereign activity alone — through faith — trusting and relying upon Christ's work alone. We are also sanctified in the same way, by grace — Christ's doing — through faith — via reliance upon Christ's doing — alone.
Christ does it all.
Salvation, from start to finish, is a divine not a human undertaking. Christ alone is in charge of my salvation and my sanctification. Yea! Soli Deo Gloria.
Do you believe this? It may be difficult for some to give up hoping in themselves and trust that only Christ's current activity can change me, only Christ can mature me, only Christ can save me from sin, from myself.
And He will!
"He who began a good work in you will complete it" (Phil 1:6).
"Now glory be unto Him who by His mighty power that works within us is able to accomplish infinitely more than we would ever dare to ask or hope" (Eph 3:20).
Christ lives in the Christian to "work in us what is pleasing to Him, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen" (Heb 13:21).
Christ lives in the believer "both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Phil 2:13).
It's not Christian principles in my mind, or the mastery of Christian formulas for living, or even a spiritual anointing, or the power of God upon me. It's more personal than that! Christ lives in me!
"... And the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me" (Gal 2:20).
... And He gave Himself to me, ontologically living within the Christian believer, leading those who wait on Him and filling those who thirst for Him.
So when you are led to do something that Jesus would do, do it! Do it with Him, trusting Him to do it through you.
And watch what Jesus does.
He does things in ways that bring God glory, that make us feel alive to God, and in ways in which we recognize that Christ lives in us.
LIFEHOUSE "EVERYTHING" SKIT
Watch this video now.
Wow! This is a very powerful video.
It started out lame (to me), but got pretty intense, powerful, illuminating. It released a lot in me, including tears, self-recognition, profound awareness of God's love, profound longing for God, and truly grateful worship.
During the spiritual battle I kept waiting for Jesus to DO something, not just rely on the girl with determination but not enough strength. Finally, HE DID! It was awesome. I need Jesus to do this everyday.
From within.
He does.
Watch this. Be blessed.
See sin for what it is.
Worship God.
Trust Jesus.
He loves you and wants to do the same for you... in you.
GALATIANS II: DISCOVERING HOW WE TRUST JESUS
Steve Behlke
August 19, 2008
More "trusting Jesus" stuff, because the female-elder debate is not top on my list of absolutes...
"Okay, Steve, trust Jesus, that's what you keep telling us. Fine, we want to, we know we should, but how do we trust Jesus?"
That seems to be the question I'm hearing.
Recently someone said to me, "It's easier for me to have concrete things that I must do than to simply 'trust Jesus.'"
"Trusting Jesus," she said, "sounds so vague."
Someone else just told me she had to do certain things to be saved. She said something like, "Someone else can 'trust Jesus,' it was more real for me to do these things."
Someone else told me, "People want to trust Jesus but they need to know how to trust Jesus."
Yikes. How on earth did something as simple and relational as trusting Jesus or believing in Jesus or living by faith in Jesus, which are standard fare akin to "spiritual ABCs" in the New Testament, become so foreign to Jesus believing, Gospel living Christians today?
Paul says, "The righteous shall live by faith."
"No!" we say, "Give us concrete things to do!"
Jesus tells us, "Trust God, trust also in Me."
"That's too abstract," we say, "give us a checklist of three or four things that we should do."
To trust Jesus is to believe and to accept Him precisely as He is revealed in the Scriptures. To trust Jesus is a personal thing; personal in us; personal toward Him.
It is more than trusting what Jesus says or does, though that is part and parcel with it. Trusting Jesus cuts directly to who Jesus is. Ultimately, we trust who Jesus is; so that what and who He and the Bible says He is, He is to us personally.
Who is Jesus? He is God. GOD. God! The Personal, Living, Loving, Lord God Almighty!
Knowing Jesus this way, believing this, is essential to trusting Jesus. Jesus is God with us, Emmanuel, God is now one of us, full of grace and truth, and mighty to save.
To trust Jesus is to put certain hope, personal assurity in Jesus: In Jesus as God. Jesus as Savior. Jesus as Friend. In Jesus who lived. Jesus who died. Jesus who rose from the dead. In Jesus who loves. Jesus who helps. Jesus who forgives. Jesus who cast out demons. Jesus who calmed storms. In Jesus who is worshiped by men and women and children and angels and waves and rocks and trees and all of creation. Each one of these statements represents something of our relationship to Christ, they help us to know Jesus, to trust Him.
Trusting Jesus is less managable than relating to God by following a set lists of things to do, set orders, principles, or laws. It's one thing to study books about marriage and follow certain steps, but it's a whole different ballgame when you marry. Same with trusting Jesus, He is not a biblical principle to apply, a simple set of verses to practice, or a black-and-white Law to obey.
Jesus is not a lever that we pull on to make something good happen. Trust is involved. He cannot be manipulated. He's not tidy. He's not practical. He's certainly not drab. He's GOD, truly, personally. He's innovative, daring, dynamic. He is LORD over all. He draws outside of the box. He is always to be counted on, for He's true and faithful and trustworthy, but we must not expect Him to do things our way or to do the same thing the same way the same time every time.
Jesus doesn't follow a set of blueprints every time He acts in our life. Jesus does things differently at different times. He healed one blind guy one way and another blind guy another way. Sometimes He healed. Sometimes He delayed. Once He delayed so long the guy died; then He raised Him from the dead. This is the Jesus we're called to know and trust. He rebuked one storm; then walked on the water during another. One time He took the disciples up on a mountain to pray; another time He took them on a mountaintop and started radiating, glowing before them.
So maybe I'm seeing why it's more difficult to trust Jesus than to follow a set of directions. We need to develop the personal trust. We need to know Jesus theologically and personally. We need to stop looking at the Bible like a set of instructions. We need to see Jesus in the Scriptures. Spend time with Him in the Scriptures and also in life, in our life. We need to believe what the Bible tells us about Jesus and live by it, talk to Him, trust in Him, step out in faith and live in light of who Christ is to us!
Trusting Jesus means putting sure hope in Him, not altering or adding to or airbrushing Jesus or His character or His teaching; but worshiping and loving and relating to Jesus precisely as He reveals Himself in Scripture, submitting to Christ, so that we experience Jesus in our own hearts and lives.
Jesus tells us to trust Him for who He is; to take Him at His Word; trusting that He'll deliver the goods; He'll do what He says and more.
A couple of examples: (1) Jesus promises never to leave us or forsake us. To "trust Jesus" is to know and not doubt that He is God, full of grace and truth, and to believe that He is with us, that's His character, His promise, and God has not abandoned us, not even when we feel alone, not even when we sin really big and we feel rotten about ourselves, not even when circumstances make it feel and seem like Jesus is nowhere around. He's here. Believe it.
(2) Jesus promises eternal life to whosoever believes Him. To "trust Jesus" is to rejoice in who He is and that He's telling the truth, that we have eternal fellowship with God and eternal grace and eternal love because of Jesus, because He is God crucified for us, for our sins, and for our salvation. Right now. No matter what the devil says. No matter how crazy it sounds.
Personally speaking, because of who Jesus is and what He's done and what He said it all means, I do not doubt God's love nor my destiny. I trust Jesus for God's love today and forever. That's one of the main things I trust Jesus for! I know God delights in me. I know that God loves me. I know that my sins are dealt with and they will not be thrown in my face, for Jesus died for my sins, Jesus guarantees it, and I trust Him. God loves me, I trust Jesus for that. He says it's so. Take that, devil!
(3) The New Testament promise that as a believer, Christ lives in me. We must not depend on whether we feel that Christ lives in us! To "trust Jesus" is to believe that, "Wow, Christ makes His home in me, he's the guest in my heart. I'm not alone in here, just me, my sinful self and I. It's not just me talking to myself about what to do. It's not just me relying on my wisdom or my strength and making all the right decisions on my own. Christ lives in me."
This isn't something we make happen. It's something God says is already and always true of the Christian. We are merely, wonderfully, to believe it and to live in light of it. Christ lives in me. I cannot fully grasp the significance of this. It's spiritual; beyond science and rationality. Hey, I can't even explain how my own spirit and soul and body fully relate.
I don't really know where I end and Christ begins. But I do know that Christ lives in me and is one with me. God is as close in me as my own thoughts. And I love to peer in and look and see, as it were, Christ there, to look Him in the eyes, to behold His presence, to see His face and to take confidence in His promises and to know that I can (we can) do all things through Him...
Too general? Still too many blurry edges? You'd rather have some scientifically verifiable things to do? A check list that if you do this God must do that, like pulling a lever or pushing a button? Trusting Jesus isn't enough?
If so, it might be because "trust" itself is so hard for us today. Especially trusting someone we don't see. Jump into a dark room where you cannot see anyone but you only hear a voice. It all depends on whose voice it is. If I trust the person, I might jump. No chance otherwise. We too often trust only ourselves, and that's not always safe. We depend on ourselves, and that's dangerous. We only really know ourselves, and we don't always like what we know...
Trusting Jesus is predicated upon knowing Jesus, first from the Scriptures then by personal experience. Learning from the Bible, God's Word, from Christ, from the friends and followers of Jesus themselves, and then from being a friend and follower ourselves. Meeting Jesus, trusting Jesus and longing for more. Longing for more than knowledge about Christ, longing for Christ Himself.
The photo is from time indefinite
WOMEN AND ELDERS: PT IV WOMEN SHOULD HELP LEAD THE CHURCH
Steve Behlke
August 18, 2008
If you're just joining us you may want to check out part I or part IIor part III
It is quite clear that the church of the New Testament benefited from godly, female leaders. Gospel-shaped women ascended to prominent roles of influence and service in the church community.
From a quick survey of the New Testament, women served as deacons (1 Tim. 3:11). Phoebe was a "servant" [GK, deacon] of the church (Rom 16:1).
Priscilla was a "worker in the Lord" and a gifted teacher. If name order is significant in the Bible, she apparently took the lead over her husband in discipling Apollos (Acts 18:24-28). Together, they hosted a church in their home (1 Cor 16:19).
Lydia (Acts 16:14) was not only the first Christian believer in Thyatira but was a leader in the church that met in her home (16:40)
Tryphaena and Tryphosa were "workers in the Lord." (Rom. 16:12).
And besides these women, who wouldn't want to be discipled by, say, Martha's sister Mary who learned at Jesus' feet in humility and adoration (Luke 10:38-42)?!
Who wouldn't wouldn't want to learn about true worship from the woman who lavished her perfume upon Jesus' feet in tearful worship and love (Matt 26:6-13)?! Fact is, Jesus infers that we should be discipled by her (26:13).
How many townsfolk — men and women — did the Samaritan woman lead to Christ after she encountered and trusted Jesus Christ at Jacob's Well (Luke 4:39)?!
Again, no women appear to have been "elders" in the New Testament, yet women held prominent roles of leadership. Women also had prominent relationships of influence upon such stalwarts as Apollos, Timothy, and Paul, and each of the church communities they participated in.
Our earlier question was: Are Women Meant to be Church Elders Today? That question is subject to sound Bible interpretation, prayer and reason. Biblically, the early church never taught this nor practiced it. Now the question becomes, was this merely descriptive of 1st century churches or is it prescriptive for all churches? The jury is still out.
But, which ever side you take in this discussion, women can and must arise to roles and relationships of significant influence in the church today!
We need godly women discipling other women (Titus 2:3-4). Women understand female-specific application issues better than most men. Women may be the best at helping other women to get and trust and follow Jesus in certain aspects of life and, particularly, in one-on-one settings.
Likewise, certain Christ-loving, theologically-informed women might be best to teach men regarding certain issues too. Think of it: How blessed I would be to learn trust from the widow who gave her last penny as an offering to God?
Could I not benefit in a thousand ways from the woman who anointed Christ with her expensive perfume?!
Is there nothing I could learn from Mary in the way of contemplative spirituality?!
Imagine if we weren't shaped at all by the woman caught in adultery regarding the healing power of God's forgiving love or of the power of the Gospel to change a life forever?!
It seems that, no matter which side of the "women as church elders" discussion you hold to, Gospel-shaped, theologically-informed, Christ-loving women can teach most all of us a thing or two about a host of important discipleship issues like Christian service, sacrifice, love, submission, humility, faith, hope, trust, surrender, devotion, giving, shepherding, endurance, dependence, self-denial, etc.
WOMEN AND CHURCH ELDERS: PT III: WHAT THE NEW TESTAMENT SAYS
By Steve Behlke
August 12, 2008
If you have not read Part I or Part II follow the links to these earlier posts.
Regarding women as elders in the church, no doubt, people smarter than myself have made engaging arguments for each side of this issue. Clearly, we can each find someone with an important sounding name and impressive sounding credentials to support our view, whichever view we currently hold to. In five seconds, we can google an author, a book, an article, pastor, a church, a denomination, or blog, to support our view.
Let's admit to that, without saying "no one can ever know" or "there is no absolute truth," so "let's all do whatever seems right in our own eyes and God will bless us."
Are you with me so far? If not, stop reading, it'll only get you upset...
... But if so, let's also admit that we each approach this issue with different backgrounds, perspectives, experiences, agendas, upbringings, sexes, training, worldviews, and interpretative values. Perhaps the best thing we can do, then, is acknowledge that we cannot put these things entirely aside, yet we must humble ourselves to God's Word, with no agenda other than to seek God's will, being full ready to practice it in our lives.
Finally, I want to mention that the popularity of this topic, when it first emerged, compelled me to bring it forth for more thorough discussion and consideration. I honestly do not wish for anyone to be waiting for me to weigh in as the male-female-elder authority, I am not. I just want to seek out God's Word, nothing else. At this point, I feel that for me to weigh in puts me in danger of angering some whose minds are long ago made up one way and being congratulated by those whose minds were made up the other way. My intention is not to be the "last word" on this, but from the start, it was to help each of us to study God's Word with an attitude of finding out what God really says, and to help those who humbly and honestly seek God's will to engage God's Word and God's Spirit on this matter.
That said, regarding women as elders, what does the Bible say, starting with Jesus? First, we saw this in Part II, but Jesus in His earth-life did not teach on the issue of church elders, period. So, glean what we can from Jesus but let's also seek the clear words of the New Testament Church Leaders to discover God's recorded Word on this matter.
And yet, Jesus did appoint leaders, the Twelve Apostles. Maybe we can learn something from this. When Jesus appointed the apostles, He only appointed males. This was not a cultural issue for Jesus, seeing that He broke every other cultural taboo to follow God's will, thus, He would have appointed women to be His apostles if it was God's will. But He did not. Clearly, for whatever reason, it was God's will that Jesus' apostles' were each male.
Okay... What does the Bible, particularly, what do the New Testament Church Leaders say? If we have a high view of Scripture, which I do, another way of saying this is what does the Holy Spirit say on this matter? Or what does the ascended Christ, the Head of the church, say on this matter?
The answer? The New Testament, the Holy Spirit, the ascended Christ, and the New Testament Church Leaders together prescribe male elders.
It's what the Bible says. Granted, we may interpret these passages to mean something differently or we may dismiss them as ancient lore and backwards thinking which is entirely unworthy of 21c Christianity, but if we look solely at what the New Testament teaches, and if that matters to us, it teaches plural, male eldership. Read the following few samples,
Acts 14:23 When they [Paul and Barnabas] had appointed elders [masculine] in every church, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.
Acts 15:22 Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers. 23 With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders [masculine], your brothers [masculine], to the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia...
1 Timothy 3:1 Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. 2 Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife... 4 He must manage his own family well... 5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?) 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7 He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap.
Titus 1:5 The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you. 6 An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe... 7 Since an overseer is entrusted with God's work, he must be blameless... 8 Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. 9 He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.
Every time the New Testament prescribes elders in the church they are to be male. We may not understand why, we may believe it is cultural capitulation, neandertholic institutional control, or we may think we should put a different spin on it like if the Apostles only knew what we knew today it would be different, but the Holy-Spirit-inspired-New-Testament teaches male eldership in the church of Jesus Christ.
But can we honestly claim this is mere capitulation to an ancient culture? Many argue for this, but did Jesus ever capitulate to culture any time when the culture was in the wrong... ever?! NO! Did Paul... ever?! Again, NO! So why would we claim that they capitulated here?! Wouldn't this be the best time to reverse the wrong-trend of culture?
Clearly, the New Testament church that followed Jesus Christ elevated and honored women; and good and godly women were in prominent roles of influence and service in the church — just not as elders. The Bible speaks of women in other prominent roles of leadership: as deacons (1 Tim. 3:11). Phoebe was a "servant of the church at Cenchrea" (Rom 16:1). Prisca was a fellow "worker in the Lord," she apparently took the lead, even over her husband, in discipling Apollos (Acts 18:24-28). Together this couple hosted a church in their home (1 Cor 16:19). Tryphaena and Tryphosa, too, besides having the coolest two names were "workers in the Lord." (Rom. 16:12). Just not elders.
I'm going to end for now with a few random thoughts that will be explored in later posts:
- Women should be leaders in the church, just not elders.
- We should be fine with that!
... For, "All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they? 30 All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they?" (1 Cor 12:29-30).
- Spiritual gifts need to be employed. But spiritual gifts do not determine office
... i.e., a woman gifted to shepherd or lead should shepherd and lead, but that does not mean she must be appointed an elder).
- Elders aren't the best-and-end-all leadership role in the church (1 Cor 12:28; Eph 4:11).
- Elders are never meant to be red-tape beaurocratic managers of programs and rules.
... A church is deprived when this is what elders do! They are to be strong, unafraid, shepherds of the church community, teachers and proclaimers of truth, guardians and defenders of truth, overseeing and defending and feeding the souls of those in their care. It is not a position of esteem but of responsibility and hard-work and fearless proclamation and leading.
- Culture does play some role in some of this discussion (particularly the head dress language, et al) but the Bible ties it's reasons against women being the primary authorities and guardians of the truth whom God holds responsible for those under our care to the Creation Narrative, which never changes, not to any cultural biases, which always change.
- A fun but disturbing passage: Another time the apostle Paul mentions some rather dubious sounding restrictions on women's role in the church, things that my stomach grimaces over, things I don't want to touch with a 10 foot pole. Right when I want to say these can only be cultural in nature, for Paul's time and not for ours, the apostle does two things: (1) He says this is the Lord's commandment and not mere Pauline theology or cultural bias; then (2) he challenges our sense of cultural superiority and our own notion of being more spiritual than Paul or God Himself: "If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment. But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized."
(1 Cor 14:37-38).
... I.e., If you think you're a prophet or really spiritual, Paul says, you will recognize that what Paul just wrote is Christ's commandment. And if we don't recognize this, God does not recognize us as prophet or spiritual. In other words, we're thinking and speaking from our flesh, not our born again spirit. WOW... or not wow?! Depends on how we receive these... or not.
- Also... 1 Corinthians 14:34-38
- Galatians 3:28
- 1 Timothy 2:9-15
- 1 Timothy 3:11
More posts to come...
WOMEN AS CHURCH ELDERS: WHAT DID JESUS DO?
Steve Behlke
August 09, 2008
Click here to read PT 1:Wonderful Women and Church Leadership and it's the comments.
The question is not what do you think but what does God think? What did Jesus do? And what does Holy Writ actually say about women as elders, primary pastors, bishops, or overseers?
After asking this question I've been reminded that it is easier:
To say what we think rather than what God actually says, whether we agree or not...
To believe we are right, no matter what our view, and everyone else is wrong...
To change the meaning of Scripture than to change our mind...
To believe there are no absolutes, nobody knows the answer, so I'll believe what I want and you believe what you want.
And this goes way beyond our beliefs about women and church leadership and biblical interpretation.
But let's get to our matter: What did Jesus do in this regard? And which women did He set over the church as leaders?
First, it must be stated that Jesus didn't appoint anyone to be an elder over the church. God used Paul and the early churches to appoint elders. However, Jesus did choose Twelve Apostles. So that's what we'll go with for today.
Now Jesus was no male chauvenist, that title does not stick, but He only chose men to be His Apostles. Each of the Twelve that Jesus Christ appointed to be Apostles were men.
And listen, it's not that He did not have some good and godly and gifted women to choose from. When you consider the twelve guys that Jesus chose, frankly, I don't think their goodness, godliness, or giftedness had anything to do with their selection! They weren't brainiacs or spiritual giants either. I think Martha could have ran circles around John in the area of busyness and service. Her sister Mary probably towered over Peter in terms of spirituality and listening to Jesus.
But the simple fact remains, Jesus Christ chose 12 men to be His apostles.
Again, Jesus was not lacking good women around Him, nor was He chauvenistic or biased or bound by His culture. He broke every other cultural rule, so He certainly could have broken this one! In fact, I'm almost surprised that He didn't. But He had His reasons.
As far as woman as humans, as Christians, as people of worth and value and love and friendship and honor are concerned, there is no doubt that Jesus loved and honored and gave value to women! We cannot fathom how scandalously cross-cultural Jesus' encounters and friendships with women were! Christ was a liberator of women — as well as other mistreated, marginalized, vulnerable, low-on-the-cultural-totem-pole, at-risk, persons.
Jesus was a liberator but not a woman's libber. That's pushing an agenda which slips right off of Him, that's airbrushing Jesus, that's reimaging Christ to our liking.
Here's some beautiful realities regarding Jesus and His esteem of women:
Two of His BFFs were women (Martha and Mary). There were others too, there was Mary (no, not his mother), and the other Mary, and the other Mary too.
Jesus taught women, Martha's sister Mary is an incredible example. Jesus' Mother is an example of obedience. Another woman would be mentioned for her extravagant worship of Christ for all time.
Jesus healed the woman who had been sick and bleeding for twelve years.
Jesus was the only one to defend a women who was busted in adultery, a pretty scandalous and substantial sin (at least, in her husband's and in her community's eyes).
He was questioned by his own followers for talking to the woman at the well.
He received support from Mary of Magdalene (whom He healed of evil spirits and sickness), Joanna, and Susanna.
The religious leaders mocked Jesus for letting a prostitute touch Him, weeping in gratitude at His feet.
Mary, His "mother" was blessed to carry "God the infant Jesus Christ" in her womb and to nurse Him at her breast.
The first people that Jesus showed Himself to after His resurrection were women!
The last person that Jesus spoke directly to before giving up His Spirit on the cross was a woman.
So Jesus' opinion of the fairest is not sexest or biased and those who care about this should rejoice...
But which women did Jesus choose to be His apostles? None, all twelve were men. This is not a slap in the face of women, Jesus didn't do rude things like that.
Did Jesus confer upon any woman rule and authority in the church? Not that I have been shown. Again, this is not a minimizing of women, Jesus didn't think that way.
And among the women stated above, there is no sense that they were anything but blessed and graced and honored by God! There is no way that what they did was small and insignificant or that they were second-class Christians or given the wrong end of the stick because they weren't chosen to be one of the Twelve. Even after Judas hung himself, the Eleven sought another Apostle who had to be "a man" who had accompanied them and seen Jesus Christ from first to last (Acts 1:21).
So Jesus taught women, ministered to women, received ministry from women, honored and protected and valued women. He went out of his way to speak to women and to heal women and to reconcile women to the Father.
But there is no passage that I am aware of by which Jesus sets up women to be apostles or primary leaders in the church.
There is much more to be addressed, looked at, interpreted, and understood on this matter. And we will address this together after I return from Lake Winnepa-Something.
But the question that arises at this point, and I think it's always significant, is does Jesus matter?!
Hopefully we all say yes (and mean it) but for now, how much weight should be given to what Jesus did or did not do? Then what about the New Testament? And what about the New Testament Church? And what about some of those other things, cultural things, like women wearing a veil and stuff? I'll await addressing some of these until next week.
Have Fun. Turn your eyes upon Jesus. Be filled with love. Be angry (if you must) but do not sin. 