Previous Post – The Disciples Prayer

Last Tuesday, at the annual Desiring God pastors conference, well-known pastor & author John Piper advocated for what he calls a “masculine Christianity,” claiming that “God has given Christianity a masculine feel.”

“God revealed Himself in the Bible pervasively as king not queen; father not mother,” Piper said. “The second person of the Trinity is revealed as the eternal Son not daughter; the Father and the Son create man and woman in His image and give them the name man, the name of the male…God appoints all the priests in the Old Testament to be men; the Son of God came into the world to be a man; He chose 12 men to be His apostles; the apostles appointed that the overseers of the Church be men; and when it came to marriage they taught that the husband should be the head.”

“Now, from all of that I conclude that God has given Christianity a masculine feel,” said Piper. “And being God, a God of love, He has done that for our maximum flourishing both male and female… He does not intend for women to languish or be frustrated or in any way suffer or fall short of full and lasting joy in this masculine Christianity. From which I infer that the fullest flourishing of women and men takes place in churches and families that have this masculine feel.”

More of his comments can be found here.

Generally, my online response to such controversies are to remain silent- not because I do not believe that such dangerous theology should not be confronted, but rather because, in the age of viral-videos and social media, I resist giving more air time to what I believe is ignorant, dangerous, damaging, etc.

However, when Rachel Held Evans called upon Christian men to respond, I felt compelled to break that rule.  Rachel’s challenge was as follows:

“There’s a double-standard out there in which a woman’s critique of patriarchy tends to get discounted as nothing more than the rants of an “angry feminist,” and, truth be told, I’ve grown a bit weary of hearing that charge each time I speak out about this disturbing trend in the evangelical church.

So instead, I’d like to challenge the guys to respond.”

Rachel is a writer whose passion and poignancy continues to challenge me to grow in faith and truth.  Without a question, she is a leader in the Body of Christ who I need to follow.  Her ability bring life to God’s truth- yes, that means she teaches from Scripture- and communicate it effectively and engagingly in our current culture and context is a gift to Christian everywhere.  And so, I felt her invitation deserved a response.

Since volumes have been written about what God (and His written Word) has to say about gender, I will not attempt to explain the details of what I believe and how I arrived there.  Rather, let me sum it up by saying that I am deeply convinced that God calls both women and men into all vocations in the Church, gifting and empowering them to walk with one another in obedience to those callings.  Therefore, I believe women are called to pastor churches, to teach Christians of all ages and gender.  I have seen such women walk in that obedience and have been blessed to submit to their authority, including and especially my wife, Kim.

Further, I believe that in a marriage relationship between a man and a woman, they are to work together in mutual submission, respecting the differences in their giftings and experience- difference that are apparent in the unique individual, not based on their gender.  There have been many times in which I have rightfully submitted to the authority of my wife.  At times it was because she was clearly more knowledgeable, gifted and/or experienced in the situation at hand or because we believe that the Spirit was leading her.  In faith, we work through our differences and, when necessary, submit to the other as we see appropriate.  It is not always easy nor efficient, but it seems to me that following Christ rarely is.

As I read the story of God through Scripture and study the move of God through the rest of history, I am deeply convinced that the patriarchy that is so prevalent is a reflection of the brokenness of sin which has been and is being reversed by the redemptive work of Christ.  That reversal is the work of the Spirit, breaking into the world and making God’s impossible kingdom a reality.  This is the work of God, the work of Christ and thus, the work of His Body.

We are called to be the living alternative to the broken reality of what we see in the world around us.  Failure to do so is to walk in rebellion against the only Saviour worthy of our devotion and the only King worthy of our obedience.  There is no more or even possibility for neutrality on this issue.  As Desmond Tutu once said:

“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.”

Worse than silence or supposed neutrality is identify the brokenness of sin in our lives and call it sacred.  It is seems almost tantamount to apostasy to celebrate as God’s intention the devastating consequences of our sin.

While unpopular to say so, I believe that Piper (and those like him) affirm these flawed beliefs out of the best intentions.  They are seeking to be faithful to what they believe is God’s design for His people- for all people.  This truth does not excuse them of the resulting sin- and yes, I believe it must be called sin- however, it should give us pause in how we respond to such failings.

Public and prophetic rebuke is often necessary in such cases.  However, there are few who seem to be able to make such corrections with the grace necessary to still reflect the God waiting to forgive their (and our) sins (and I believe Rachel is one of those few). Instead, the primary response by Christians should be one of humility, grace and unparalleled devotion to live the better alternative, at any cost.

Every generation looks back upon the Church before us and finds their failings and blind spots obvious and hard to comprehend.  Yet, like them, we are equally blind to our own failings.  The realization that our grandchildren will shake their heads at some of our failings should nurture in us a patient grace.  While it might be gratifying to “crucify” (and I do not use that word by accident) those we rightly rebuke, most are being as faithful in their flawed beliefs as we are in our own.  Yes, we need to be strong, clear and uncompromising in our correction, but love and grace must win.

As a Christian man, I am committed to submitting to Christ by submitting to the women He has called, gifted and commanded to lead His Church.  While I am grateful and humbled to do so, it should not be credited to me as meritorious in any way.  While such a commitment might be exceptional with respect to past and current realities, our measure is Christ and His kingdom.  To do any less is unacceptable.

Previous Post – Why St. Francis Loved Jesus & Religion

It’s happening again!  My friend JR Briggs announces the upcoming Epic Fail Pastors Conference.  Here’s the skinny:

the idea

The idea for this conference came from two sources: A blog post from J.R. Briggs, a pastor at Renew Community in Lansdale, Pa and the wildly popular site www.epicfail.com.
A few dangerous questions were asked:

• What if we offered a space that is gutsy, hopeful, courageously vulnerable for pastors to let go of the burden to be a Super Pastor?

• What if we could hold an event that was free from the thrills and frills of other pastors conferences?

• What if we came together as epic failures and sought not successful models or how-do’s but instead celebrated faithfulness in ministry because of the reality of Jesus?

•What if we were reminded that we’re not responsible for being ‘successful’ in ministry, but we are responsible for being faithful to the calling that God has laid out for us – regardless of the outcome?

•What if we had a conference that was led not by famous pastors who are household names, but by scandalously ordinary ministers and leaders who are faithfully attempting to join with God – even in the midst of glaring obscurity and anonymity?

That post attracted more hits than any other post that J.R. had written in seven years. People from all over the world began contacting J.R. through the blog, email, phone and text messages saying, ‘I’m in! Where do I sign up?” We knew we had struck a nerve. We were on to something significant.

This excited us and freaked us out.

the details

When:

March 22nd – 24th. Registration will start at 6 p.m. on Thursday, we will start at 7 p.m. We will be done at noon on the 24th. It is important to stay through the end of the conference.

Where:

True Worship Experience | 374 East Willow Dr., Mansfield, OH 44906

Cost:

$89. This covers the cost of the conference. You are on your own for food and lodging. Check out our travel section for nearby lodging.

For all other details, click here.

Today we learned about the death of John Stott.  He was truly one of the most influential men of our age and will continue to be for generations to come.  He will be missed, but he will be remember for a long time.

How did John Stott impact your faith?  Which of his books most impacted you?

For me, his book “The Message of the Sermon on the Mount” has been most impacting (though it was titled “Christian Counter-Culture” when I read it).  That book launched me into the life and teachings of Jesus like I had never before.  In fact, it played a good part in forming some of my understanding expressed in my own book, “The Cost of Community: Jesus, St. Francis & Life in the Kingdom”.

The last book I read by Stott was “The Radical Disciple: Some Neglected Aspects of Our Faith” which was also an excellent read.  However, I would like to hear from you.  So, again:

How did John Stott impact your faith?  Which of his books most impacted you?

Previous Post – Missional-Monastic Spectrum

When J.R. Briggs informed me about the Epic Fail Pastors Conference, I jealous- jealous because I wouldn’t be able to attend myself and jealous that I didn’t come up with this brilliant and long over-due idea!  Here is what it is about, in a nut shell:

Previous Post – Living Mission

Over the last couple of years I have been noticing a pattern in church/ministry/missions engagement among Christian that has left me somewhat unsettled.  At first I could not put my finger on it, but I began to see that it was linked to the culture of volunteerism that has developed in our Christian sub-culture.  Volunteering has become the primary way in which Christians are invited to participate in the work and mission of God & His Church in the world.  While much good has come of this (and I am not suggesting the eradication of Christian volunteerism), I truly believe that we have crippled and compromised our missional capacity by making it so central and foundational to our approach to mission/ministry.

It has been since planting a church that I have seen it most clearly.  Initially, the passion and vision for a new missional community in our inner city context was received with great enthusiasm and participation.  However, as the initial fervour cooled, as it inevitably must, we realized that discipline and commitment were then necessary to keep the community healthy and growing in maturity.  Again, all of this is expected and natural.  However, despite how many affirm that we want to be a community of leaders who share the responsibility of the work of mission equally, functionally people still assume hierarchical leadership, leaving it to the few (or the one) to get things done when they are not able.

As I’ve dug deeper, I began to see a common thread: we all too often view our involvement in missional church community through the lens of volunteerism.  In other words, we love the vision and reality of ministry and want to be involved, as long as it fits.  We have discipled entire generations of Christians to see missional engagement as a voluntary opportunity they can add to their lives when it works or isn’t too demanding.  This isn’t to say that many people don’t live sacrificially, but rather that the general trend reflects an attitude of optionality.

What will change this?  How can we get from a place where the intellectual conviction about the nature of  missional-incarnational communities of faith translates into our instinctual default in every day choice (and perhaps especially in times of stress)?  In many ways, trying to make it work without that shift of worldview feels like taking my dog to the auto mechanic for surgery!  How to bring about that change of understanding- a change that gives rise to a shift in action, a true praxis- is something that has become the focus of my energies lately.

While volunteerism has great value, even in the Church, it cannot be allowed to remain as a central model for Christian life and service.  The individualism and consumerism that shapes how we participate in volunteering are incompatible with the selfless, all-demanding devotion that Christ calls for in participating in His mission.  I am not suggesting that such devotion is best expressed in programs or ministry events, but rather that work of the mission of God is immediate and demanding, requiring every believer to participate in the costly commitment of a mutually owned vocation and responsibility.

When Jesus said that the harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few, He was not suggesting that there were few Christians and many needing to be saved.  Rather, He was exposing the reality that, in the face of all who call claim to be people of God, very few have proven willing to pay the price and live the lives of service and mission in the context of His community, the Church.  We need to see a shift if our worldview (and thus in our approach to spiritual and missional formation) if we are going to address this problem.

What can be done?  What have you seen that works? I am not asking this question out of some academic curiosity, but as someone who feels the threat of burn out at the peripheral of my life.  Let me know what you think.

(What does a disciple look like?  Check out my series on the Sermon on the Mount here.)

Previous Post – Fitch & Nelson – Part 2

The third & final installment of the conversation between David Fitch (Northern Seminary) and Gary Nelson (Tyndale University College and Seminary) is up.  Here they discuss the realities of pastoring in a post-Christendom context.  They have some great insights, so check them out:

Pastors in Post-Christendom from Bill Kinnon on Vimeo.

]]> http://www.missional.ca/2010/10/fitch-nelson-3/feed/ 1 http://www.missional.ca/2010/10/fitch-nelson-part-2/ http://www.missional.ca/2010/10/fitch-nelson-part-2/#comments Fri, 15 Oct 2010 14:18:53 +0000 Jamie http://www.missional.ca/?p=1140

Previous Post – Fitch & Nelson – Part 1

Part 2 of the excellent conversation between David Fitch (Northern Seminary) and Gary Nelson (Tyndale University College and Seminary) is now here.  This time they explore the essential question of the future of seminary education and what it means to be formed into the missional people & leaders the church needs.  There is so much to glean from these conversations, so check them out:

Nelson/Fitch – Theological Education in the 21st Century from Bill Kinnon on Vimeo.

Thanks once again to the work of Medri Kinnon Productions, my friends Imbi & Bill Kinnon.

Previous Post – The Book of James – Part 6

It is a strange thing to come into your vocation.  I have been a missionary for over 15 years, but it has been in the last few years, when I have stepped into the role of pastor of the church we planted (Little Flowers Community), that I have felt the most fulfilled.  However, it is also some of the hardest times in my life, bringing me closer the warning flags for burn out.  I believe in what we are doing, convinced that we are humbly following God’s missional identity for us.  The challenge is to try and make it sustainable.

Sustainability has to do with much more than just finances (though that is significant, as I will explain shortly).  The levels of energy and time required to form and nurture a missional community in an inner city context are far greater than we expected, tapping our reserves very quickly.  I am daily amazed by my wife & our small team of missionaries who willingly live on next to nothing, working long hours in (often) thankless service to God & others.  It truly is worth it.

However, I never thought that such a commitment might threaten our ability to have a family.  When my wife & I found out that, despite being seemingly highly fertile that we could not conceive, we began to look at other options.  International adoption was the most viable & responsible given our circumstances.  While local adoption was less expensive, we were told to expect a 10-13 year wait to get a referral, even then only after several other children came in and out of our home.  After the loss of our first child, we were not prepared for that.

And so we began the long and expensive process of adopting a child from Ethiopia.  The only benefit of the long process was that it allowed us to slowly save the necessary funds (or at least a good portion of them).  However, due to changing policies, etc. the adoption costs increased.  We buckled down, simplifying even more and saved every penny.  Things were looking promising.

This week, however, we learned from the Canadian “taxman” that I would not be eligible for the Clergy Deductions.  Essentially what it comes down to is that, because my church cannot afford to pay me and because I am therefore paid through my role as a local missionary (with YWAM), I am not technically a paid pastor.  As a result, the small return we were looking at receiving has now transformed into a bill to the Canadian government for over $3000.  Our first appeal was rejected and our second isn’t looking promising.  Thankfully, with the money we have been saving, we can pay it without going into debt, but it otherwise cleans us out.  The adoption fund is back to running on fumes.

I have every confidence that God will provide, as He has time and again throughout our ministry.  And as one of my new Haitian friends told me while I was visiting there last month, “Discouragement is not Christian”.  We are hopeful and trusting that God will provide for us our daily bread and we will be grateful for His sufficient provision, even if it isn’t what we expected.

That being said, I am finding it difficult not being discouraged.  It is hard to not wonder if we are riding on fumes ourselves, with the end just around the next corner.  I want to believe otherwise, but I am tired and drained.  People have it far worse than me, so I know I should get some perspective and move on, but I just feel like I have so little left to give.  Burn out isn’t a present reality, and having been there before, I am very thankful for that.  At the same time, it also means I am unwilling to go there again.

I do not mean for this to sound like whining.  Rather it is just the honest confession of a missional Christians seek to follow Christ’s radical call as best I can.  These are the realities of such a path.  It is an all too common story.  In part we must all learn together to persevere regardless of circumstances.  However, we must also band together to consider new and innovative ways to do mission & life together for the future.

]]> http://www.missional.ca/2010/06/family-missional-sustainability/feed/ 9 http://www.missional.ca/2010/02/ct-on-introverts/ http://www.missional.ca/2010/02/ct-on-introverts/#comments Tue, 02 Feb 2010 19:54:07 +0000 Jamie http://www.missional.ca/?p=818

Previous Post – Don’t Worry, Be Righteous – SOTM Series (11)

If you follow this blog at all, you will know that I have been very enthusiastic about Adam McHugh’s book “Introverts In The Church”.  My interview with Adam still ranks as one of my most highly read posts months after going live.  It remains one of the mostly highly and easily recommended books I promote to people when they ask what I suggest they should read.  I stand by that.

No book is without its flaws and weaknesses.  Having come to know Adam over the last few months, I am confident that he could point out, better than most, those very weaknesses in his book.  Therefore, it is expected that reviews will point out these weaknesses, as well they should.  However, when I came across Christine A. Scheller’s review for Christianity Today, I was surprised by what I read.  While she makes some important points, I fear that she frequently- and significantly- misses the mark.

What first caught my attention was this sentence:

“I suspect that for a young pastor like McHugh, introversion presents a more profound challenge than it does for congregants and empty nesters who aren’t trying to juggle the demands of church leadership and a growing family.”

While perhaps not intentional, this sentence comes off as quite condescending, as though, with a little time and maturity, McHugh would learn to “suck it up” like the rest of us.  Aside from the patronizing tone,  Scheller at once challenges McHugh’s representation of the masses, then makes a sweeping generalization of her own.  Having spent more than 15 years exploring the topic of temperaments, which an emphasis on the introversion/extroversion dynamic, Scheller’s implicit assertion is unconvincing and unsubstantiated.  Though not all introverts experience the dynamics that McHugh points out (at least to the same degree), it is far, far more prevalent than the reviewer suggests.

She goes on to say:

“In fact, McHugh himself very nearly withdrew from the ordination process because of doubts about the compatibility of his temperament and his calling. This dilemma presents both the book’s raison d’etre as well as a weakness of it. Introverts in the Church is strongest when it is descriptive, and weakest when it offers solutions, precisely because the author’s solutions are too pastor-centric and, by his own admission, theoretical. However, in this case a little bit of knowledge yields significant rewards.”

First, it is true that the book focuses more on church leadership than the average Christians daily context.  Being a pastor himself, thus drawing from his own experience, it is not surprising that much of the content focuses on the pastoral context of leadership.  That being said, the book is clearly titled “Introverts in the Church”, making this emphasis both obvious and expected.  It was one of the reasons I was drawn to the book in the first place.

Second, and more significantly, the assertion that McHugh’s solutions were admittedly theoretical (and that said solutions are weak) is misplaced.  A careful reading of the book makes it clear that the author was not suggesting that his solutions were theoretical, but rather that  he was admitting his own place on the journey in them.  In other words, he acknowledges that he is still walking out these solutions daily, not putting himself forward as having “achieved” them.  His solutions are very practical and helpful.  Though limited in scope, that limitation is easily understood when you’ve seen the volumes that have been written about the topic.

Scheller goes on to critique McHugh’s engagement of introversion as overly clinical, as though it were a pathology.  As evidence of this claim, she point his referencing of introversion and depression, saying, “Depression is an illness, not a function of temperament.”  The odd thing about this assertion is that introversion was, indeed, once (wrongly) considered pathological.  That the author rejects this is incredibly clear throughout the book.  Further, McHugh never suggests that depression was a function of temperament, only that the dynamics of the latter are impacted by the former.  While depression can be used as a clinical term for an illness, it is more widely defined as a state of low mood.  When speaking of depression pathologically, it is expected that it would be referred to as “clinical depression” or other similar descriptive terms.  His use of “depression” in this context was not only acceptable, but reflected a dynamic proven by the study of temperament through many disciplines.

Finally, Scheller suggests that McHugh goes too far in his critique of evangelicalism, as though the author had laid at the feet of all extroverts all the woes of this tradition.  Far from it!  McHugh praises the “doer” nature of extroverts, always affirming the need for the tension between temperaments for healthy expressions of faith.  Rather than blaming extroverts for inherent failings, he is reprimanding the exclusionary trend of over emphasis on one expression, as well as the implicit and explicitly critique, over the other.  While this book will be hard for many extroverts to read, he is equally- no, significantly more demanding on his fellow introverts.

Beyond these significant (and often glaring) misrepresentation, the review gives a basic overview of the book that will be helpful to those wanting to know what they should expect.  What could have been a helpful review and critique, however, lost credibility with me.  However, Scheller continues to be a CT writer I appreciate and read regularly.

Read Adam’s own very gracious response to this review here.

Previous Post – Be The (Climate) Change – Blog Action Day 2009

My friend John Frye, author of the excellent “Jesus The Pastor: Leading Others In The Character & Power Of Christ” and “Out of Print: A Novel”, has been blogging up a storm lately around the topic of pastors, leadership and the priesthood of all believers (so far with Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 & Part 4).   John, himself a pastor, is down-right angry with some of the talk he has heard in some emerging/missional/evangelical circles of late, where the role of pastor seems to be treated as the new leper of ecclesiology.  He cites critique from some in the organic church community, stating:

• “I have noted a mantra from the organic church sympathizers. Any critique of their priesthood-of-all-believers, no-hierarchal-structure, anti-clergy/laity split, all-are-leaders-and-thus-none-are-leaders theology receives this: ‘Well, show me from the New Testament anyone with a modern pastor job description.’ I want to respond, ‘Show me your thorough-going American egalitarian, democratic, consensual decision-making polity in the New Testament.’  It just ain’t there.”

John goes on the very clearly defend the role and calling of pastor as not only Biblical, but reflective of Christ’s own example.  Anyone who knows me will know that I often talk about organic structures, am suspicious of hierarchy, oppose a clergy-laity divide that places the administration of the sacraments in the hands of the privileged few, etc.  And yet, find myself deeply resonating with John while simultaneously standing by the previous sentiments.  While some might think my defence of the role of pastor stems from my recent move to become one, this is not the case.  I am convinced that correctives of the organic church movement are essential, but that there is a trend that is taking things too far.

I do not believe that a pastor is meant to be in hierarchy over the local church community.  Pastoring is often about leadership, but I believe that leadership is necessarily hierarchical.  Too often, as we seek to dismantle the hierarchical structures of power that have become all too common in the church, we make the equally devastating move of seeking equality through uniformity.  This shift is most often defended by referencing the priesthood of all believers, a fair reversal of sacramental power structures, but one that should not be confused with the unique vocation of pastor.  Our previous unfortunate confusing/blending of the priestly and pastoral roles not only resulted in pastors being endowed with more power and privilege than ever intended, but also contributed to throwing the pastoral baby out with the bathwater of hierarchy.

Our Little Flowers Community is very intentional in moving towards functioning under community discernment, even a communal hermeneutic- that is, we form our understanding and practice of faith by moving together, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the in-formation of Scripture.  In that process, my role as pastor has been critical, just as the unique spiritual gifts of others have been essential.  It is one among many equally valuable giftings that make up the necessary diversity reflective of Christ’s Body.  Does my role give me more power and/or authority?  Without question, at this stage in our community development, it does.  However, it is not the power or authority that make the role abusive, but how that power and authority is exercised.

Again and again, John turns us back to Christ, and with good reason.  Jesus had stunning authority of every kind, yet His life and ministry is characterized by humility, service and self-sacrifice even unto death on the Cross.  His example does not deny or reject power and authority, but rather teaches us to radically embrace it and subvert them.  As we do this, uniquely embracing our individual giftings and vocations, we are formed together into a unity born from diversity, transformed into Him in Whose Image we were created, the very Body of Christ.

As devastating as the use of power to force or demand some form of unity, so too will denying the unique gifts and callings within the Church disintegrate His Body.  Both extremes seek to avoid the difficult path of conflict and chaos that will inevitably emerge as each of us face the challenge of not abusing or denying our Christ-endowed authority.  Without question they are ultimately easier, but ultimately futile.  Rather, we must seek together to be humble enough to submit to the Spirit as He works through the authority of others and equally humble as we respond to His leading to walk out our own.

1 Corinthians 12