|
|
September 2004
|
Financial reportBy the time you read this issue of the WCG News, most of our U.S. congregations will have implemented the new financial model, writes controller Ronald Kelly. We are pleased with how smoothly this change has gone. Page 3.
Ordination of WomenDoes the Bible require men and women to have different roles in the church? asks Pastor General Joseph Tkach in “Women in Church Leadership,”part three. Page 4.
Field ministryIn this issues’ “Meet Your District Superintendent,” we feature Keith Brittain, who serves the Mid-Atlantic region from Kannapolis, North Carolina, with his wife, Marian. Page 11.
Church AdministrationLeaders within the body of Christ are called to lead with balance—as shepherds and overseers, writes Dan Rogers, superintendent of U.S. ministers. A shepherd-leader leads with tender care. Page 12.
Ministers conferenceDistrict superintendents met July 23 to 27 to prepare for full implementation of the church’s new financial model and discuss leadership development and youth and children’s ministry, writes Mike Feazell. Page 14.
Youth ministryTo lead a person to Christ you have to first reach them where they are and then communicate with them in a way they can relate to, writes Ted Johnston. Page 20.
Conference
Ministers and members met for a regional conference in Denver, Colorado, June 25 to 27. As with the other 2004 conferences, the Denver conference featured Growing a Healthy Church presented by Dan Rogers, superintendent of U.S. ministers, with attendees breaking into groups to discuss implementation of this in their local congregations. Page 23.
Bible Study
In Romans 14, Paul addresses a specific problem in the first-century Roman churches—namely, that people had disagreements about different customs and religious convictions, writes Michael Morrison. Page 24.
Window on the World
It is only from the perspective of a servant that we can rightly understand our part in mission work, writes Randal Dick in Window on the World. Page 28.
By Ronald Kelly
PASADENA—By the time you read this issue of the WCG News, most of our U.S. congregations will have implemented the new financial model. We are pleased with how smoothly this change has gone. The advance work and preparation certainly have paid off.
As I mentioned last month, as we move to a local-congregation-based financial model, our financial reporting will take on a different look. That transition will take place during the rest of 2004 and be fully in place by the turn of the year.
In the meantime, we will continue to have both centralized and local financial systems in place. By centralized, I mean that member donations are processed and receipted in Pasadena. By local financial systems, I mean that in the new model, the local church will be responsible for the collection, banking and receipting of contributions. As the months go by, centralized processing will be less and less, while local processing will become the primary focus of donation processing.
However, we are in the early part of the transition, so centralized funds for July totaled just over $1.45 million. That compares to $1.44 million in 2004. Considering that two districts were processing donations locally in July, this indicates a good increase compared to the previous year. Because the centralized figures do not include the locally processed funds, we can’t provide exactly how much the increase totaled.
Centralized income for the first seven months of this year came in at $9.2 million. Last year income was $9.8 million for the same time period. But again, we have not factored in local donations.
Work at headquarters continues to focus on the transition to the new financial model, the ongoing sale of the final 17 acres of the Pasadena property and plans to relocate our staff.
We continue to receive significant interest from a variety of potential buyers. We hope to complete the campus sale by the end of 2004. However, we still have much work to do, and these complex sales have a way of taking longer than anticipated.
We are also making progress on our headquarters relocation plan. We are evaluating several properties with a major concentration on an office facility in Glendora, about 20 miles from our current campus. We are only in preliminary planning, but hope to have more concrete information to share with you in the next month or two.
The 2004 round of regional conferences is wrapping up with the final conference in Florida planned for Sept. 17 to 19. We hope to see many of you at one of these regional conferences. In the meantime, we hope your excitement grows as each congregation takes on the responsibility and joy of local financial management.
Does the Bible require men and women to have different roles in the church? Although the Old Testament does not provide the final answer for the question, proponents and opponents of females as elders often look to the Old Testament for evidence.
When Jesus analyzed the question of divorce for his first-century Jewish audience, he cited the creation account in Genesis to show how it was “in the beginning” (Matt. 19:4-5). Since Genesis tells us about the creation of male and female, the account may tell us something about God’s original design for male and female roles. We might see what the ideal was before sin distorted the relationship between the sexes.
However, Genesis does not say as much as we might like, and perhaps both opponents and proponents of women’s ordination have claimed too much for what it says. I ask that you give careful consideration to the following report of the doctrinal review team and think through the questions along with us.
Men and Women in Genesis 1-3
In the beginning, God made humanity male and female, said Jesus (Matt. 19:4). This creation set a pattern for marriage, and it may also set a pattern for relationships between male and female.1 We will examine what Genesis says verse by verse.
Genesis 1
The initial pattern is given in Genesis 1:26-27:
Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (NIV used throughout this paper, unless noted otherwise.)
There is a plural usage of the word man. The Hebrew moves without comment from the singular word man (’adam, which on the second occurrence has the definite article ha, meaning “the”) to the plural pronoun them, and explains that “man” means both male and female.
“Humanity” is a better translation, for in this verse the word ’adam clearly would include all humans, male and female alike. Genesis 5:2 also shows that the word ’adam includes male and female.
Some scholars think it is significant that God names the human race by one sex, man.2 In response, we note that ’adam does not mean “male”; as noted above, it can also be used for females.
Perhaps the best translation is “human,” and it is reasonable for God to name the first person “Human” without implying that all subsequent males represent the human race any more than females do. The fact that the same Hebrew word was used for the first male as for all humanity could be consistent with male authority, but if male authority is really God’s design, that should be demonstrated by more than a mere implication from the choice of terms.
Male and female alike are made in God’s image. Genesis 9:6 says, “Whoever sheds the blood of man [ha’adam], by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man [ha’adam].” The meaning here is not man as male, but “man” as male and female.
The NRSV accurately renders the verse in this way: “Whoever sheds the blood of a human, by a human shall that person’s blood be shed; for in his own image God made humankind.” Although people might argue about what “the image of God” means,3 it is generally agreed among conservative and liberal scholars alike that men and women alike are made in the image of God. Most conservatives agree with Ortland when he says, “Both male and female display the glory of God’s image with equal brilliance.”4
Although men and women are made in the image of God, Paul writes, “A man [aner, meaning a male] ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man” (1 Cor. 11:7).
We will discuss this passage in more detail in a later paper, but let us note for now the way that Paul reasons. He says that a woman should cover her head when she is prophesying (v. 6), but a man should not, for the man is the image and glory of God. The logic might imply that women are not the image and glory of God—but almost all scholars reject the conclusion that women are not made in the image of God.
Thomas R. Schreiner, a conservative, says, “Paul is not denying that women are created in God’s image, for he is referring to the creation accounts here and was well aware that Genesis teaches that both men and women are created in God’s image.”5 Schreiner focuses on the word glory, but does not discuss why Paul also includes the word image.
Gordon D. Fee similarly concludes that “Paul’s own interest, however, is finally not in man as being God’s image, but in his being God’s glory. That is Paul’s own reflection on the creation of man, and it is the word that finally serves as the means of contrast between man and woman.”6 C.K. Barrett says, “Paul values the term image only as leading to the term glory.”7
The broad consensus is that Genesis teaches that women are made in the image of God, and it is a mistake to interpret Paul as contradicting that conclusion. This verse shows that it is a mistake to use Paul’s arguments (designed for a different situation) to interpret Genesis.
When Paul uses Genesis as a supporting rationale, he may be giving only a narrow slice of the situation, only as it applies to his immediate concern, rather than giving a complete statement on what Genesis teaches. Paul uses Genesis to support his argument, but it is hazardous for us to make inferences from his argument to interpret Genesis. When we read between the lines, we may be reading more into it than Paul intended. We will see this illustrated again later in this paper.
As our last comment on Genesis 1:26, we note that male and female alike were assigned to rule over the earth and its animals; although God made male and female distinct and different from one another, this chapter says nothing about male and female having different roles.
Verses 28-29 say:
God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” Then God said, “I give you [plural] every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.” And it was so.
The instructions are given equally to male and female—both were given the command to reproduce and rule. Both were allowed to eat from every fruit-bearing tree.
Genesis 2
The second chapter focuses on the creation of human beings—it begins with a barren land, without rain, plants or humans (v. 5). So God “formed the man [ha’adam, the human one] from the dust of the ground [ha’adamah, a feminine word]” (v. 6). God planted a garden, made trees grow in it, and put the man there to take care of the garden (vv. 8-9, 15). Then God warned the human not to eat from one particular tree (v. 16).
The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him” (v. 18). In contrast to the rest of creation being “good,” Scripture highlights that it was not good for the human to be by himself. God wants humans to be social.
Does “suitable helper” imply that the woman was made as a servant to the man? No, the Hebrew word helper is more commonly used for God as a helper of humans (e.g., Ex. 18:4)—the word does not presume lesser authority. The woman could “help” the man by working as his equal just as much as by working subordinately to him.
The point being made in Genesis is simply that the woman is “suitable” for the man—that is, she is the same kind of being.
Gordon J. Wenham writes: “The compound prepositional phrase ‘matching him,’ [kenegdo] literally, ‘like opposite him,’ is found only here. It seems to express the notion of complementarity rather than identity. As Delitsch (1:140) observes, if identity were meant, the more natural phrase would be ‘like him.’ ”8
Is it significant that Eve was made “for” the man? The Hebrew preposition does not presume lesser authority—the point being made in Genesis is that the man was incomplete without the woman. This verse says nothing about authority. Paul likewise notes that the woman was made for the man (1 Cor. 11:9), but then concludes that men and women are mutually dependent (v. 11)—the word for does not imply inferiority or hierarchy.
Genesis explains that God had created animals, and “he brought them to the man to see what he would name them” (v. 19). So the first human named the animals (v. 20). But no “suitable helper” was found for the solitary human. None of the animals was an appropriate partner. God had known this ahead of time, of course, but the exercise of naming the animals helped the first human be aware 1) that he was not like any other animal, and 2) that he (unlike the animals previously created) did not have a partner.
Once the man was aware of his need, God put him to sleep, took one of his ribs,9 and from it fashioned a woman (vv. 21-22). Although the first human was made from the ground (just like the animals were—v. 19), the woman had a human origin, apparently to emphasize her organic unity with the man.
God brought the woman to the man, and the man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman’ [’ishshah], for she was taken out of man [’iysh]” (v. 23). This poetic expression—the first recorded words of any human—are an expression of joy at discovering the suitable partner that the man needed. The two people, although different, were the same flesh.
The words are an expression of similarity, not of hierarchy. However, it is often noted that the man named the woman, just as he had earlier named the animals, and the simple act of giving a name is supposedly an indicator of authority.10 But this is not necessarily so.11 Hagar gave God a name: “The God who sees me”—a name that God apparently accepted, for it is in Scripture (Gen. 16:13).
Naming does not always indicate authority.12 In the naming of the animals narrative, the literary context has nothing to do with authority over the animals; it is about the creation of woman and Adam’s appreciation of her. When Adam named the woman, the point being emphasized in the text is how much like Adam she was.
The Bible then concludes from the essential similarity of man and woman: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24). Curiously, it is the man who is said to leave—this is not said for the woman, though it is probably assumed.13
The couple become a new family, not under the authority of the man’s father and mother. This indicates that, no matter where they live, the man’s primary responsibility is to his wife, not his parents, and similarly, the woman’s primary responsibility is to her husband, not her parents. But the verse presumes nothing about the authority of one person over another.
Genesis 2 (unlike Genesis 1) makes distinctions between male and female. The male was made first, given a job in the garden, warned about the forbidden fruit, told to name the animals, and he responds with joy to his God-given companion. The woman does not do anything in this chapter, nor is anything said about why one was made before the other. Richard Davidson writes, “The movement in Genesis 2 … is not from superior to inferior, but from incompleteness to completeness.”14
However, the next chapter shows that the woman was aware of the forbidden fruit—the silence of chapter 2 does not mean that she was not told.15 Genesis does not tell us who told her about it, whether it was God or Adam. Who told her apparently did not matter. Likewise, we cannot put much significance on the silence of chapter 2 on other issues.
The man was created first, and it is often concluded from this that God thereby gave him authority over the woman.16 However, this should not be assumed. For example, plants do not have authority over animals, and animals do not rule humans. Throughout Genesis, we see that the firstborn does not always rule over the younger siblings.
Beck and Blomberg write, “One wonders if a hypothetical ‘first-time’ reader of Genesis 1-3, even in the ancient Jewish world, would have picked up any of the six indications of female subordination [such as priority of the male] that Schreiner discusses.”17 This comment suggests that a definitive answer must come from the New Testament; the discussion of Genesis is only a preliminary study. For a conclusion, we need other biblical evidence, and the writings of Paul are relevant for this point.
Paul’s comments on creation
In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul says that a woman should cover her head when prophesying, but a man should not, for “woman is the glory of man. For man [aner] did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man” (vv. 8-9).
There are numerous questions about the way that Paul reasons in this chapter, and a later paper will discuss them in more detail. But here we can note that Paul uses the creation priority of the man in support of the the cultural custom of women covering their heads. Paul can use the creation account to argue for a temporary custom.
Paul is saying that men and women in Corinthian society of his day may prophesy, but they must do it in slightly different ways. He is not addressing the relative authority of men and women,18 nor the authority of what they say, but only the appearance of the person saying it.
He also weakens the significance of the priority of the first man by observing that male-female relationships are transformed in the Lord: “In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman” (vv. 11-12).19
These verses strike a note of equality in the Lord, and they remind us that although the first woman came from the first man, all subsequent men have come from women, and the argument from priority is inconclusive.
So what does this passage tell us about the meaning of Genesis 2? It means that Genesis 2 can be used to argue for a cultural custom, but it also shows us that an argument for authority based on priority has a logical weakness. The passage does not prove that men are given authority over women, for that is not Paul’s purpose in this passage. Rather, he allows women to do the same as men, advising appropriate conformity with cultural norms.
To illustrate, we might paraphrase the logic of 1 Corinthians 11 in this way: Women should cover their heads when prophesying because men were created first. Genesis itself does not say that, of course, and it is not self-evident as to how Paul went from premise to conclusion; this may indicate that he was reasoning based on a practice found in his own culture.
The argument of creation priority also appears in 1 Timothy 2:13, and again, a full discussion will have to wait for another paper. Verse 12 says, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” Then verse 13 gives this rationale: “For Adam was formed first, then Eve.” But as we have already seen, the priority of Adam could be used to argue for a cultural custom, and therefore the fact that this passage argues for women’s subordination does not in itself tell us whether that role was a cultural one, or a timeless, normative one.
Similarly, 1 Timothy 2 says that women should not teach or have authority over men because men were created first. Again, Genesis 1-3 does not say that, and it is possible that Paul went from premise to conclusion by an assumption of culture. Both passages use the creation account, but neither is an attempt to tell us what Genesis means.
Both New Testament passages are easily read with the understanding that the creation priority of man gives men some sort of authority over women. However, they may also be read with an assumption of equality; we will address them in more detail in later papers.
The evidence of Genesis 1 leans toward equal roles, and the evidence of Genesis 2 would allow for different roles. However, neither chapter directly addresses the question of authority that we might bring to them, so we must be cautious about conclusions that we draw. The evidence of Genesis 2 is tempered by the following observations:
1) Our goal in the church is not always to imitate the original, pre-Fall creation. We do not suggest that people remove their clothes, for example!
2) New Testament scriptures may override the conclusions that we draw from Genesis. Genesis 1-2 are not addressing the question of authority and we must not try to infer something from these chapters beyond what they directly say.
3) Scriptural finding relevant to gender authority may not provide a full parallel to questions about church leadership. For example, gender authority in the family structure would not necessarily carry over into the church structure.
4) The New Testament may give us additional insights, since some New Testament verses address the question of church leadership more directly.
Genesis 3
Sin enters the story in chapter 3, beginning with the crafty serpent. The serpent spoke to the woman—even though the man was with her (v. 6). Why did the serpent speak to the woman rather than the man? The text does not say. What the text does say is that both ate it. Eve was deceived by the serpent and Adam went along with her.
The serpent flatly contradicted what God had said, and the woman wanted what the serpent offered, so she ate. She apparently wanted the man to be wise, too, so she gave him some fruit, and he ate. For some unexplained reason, they became ashamed of their nakedness and hid from God even though they had made something to cover their nakedness (vv. 7-8).
They responded equally to the sin: “The eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves…. They hid from the Lord God.” Genesis does not assign significance to which person sinned first—theologically, it does not matter, for the point is that they both sinned.
God called out to the man (v. 9). Why the man rather than the woman? The text does not say. Adam said he hid because he was naked, and God asked him whether he had eaten from the forbidden tree.20 The man blamed the woman, and the woman blamed the serpent. So God cursed the serpent (vv. 14-15).
The word curse is not used for the humans, but God described some unpleasant consequences for them. He told the woman, “I will greatly increase your pains [‘itstsabon] in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”
Why did God pronounce the punishment on the woman first? The text does not say—it may be for literary style. The sequence goes back and forth: 1) serpent, woman, man; 2) man, woman, serpent; 3) serpent, woman, man. The most significant curse—death—seems to be reserved for last, in the punishment pronounced for the man.
To the serpent, God predicted conflict with the female and conflict with a male offspring; to the woman, God predicted conflict with her husband; and to the man, God predicted conflict with the soil—and the soil would triumph.
Sin affected the relationships between the sexes. God told the woman that “your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” The precise meaning of “desire” is debated, but is not essential for our study.21
In Genesis 3, God made gender distinctions, and he said that husbands would rule their wives. At this point in the story, Adam represents subsequent men, and Eve represents subsequent women.
When God explained the consequences of sin, some things remained the same, and others changed. When God said that the woman’s sorrow would increase in childbearing, he was not creating a new role for the woman, but predicting a change in the role he had already designed for her.
When God said that the husband would rule over the woman, was he predicting a change? The word rule in Gen. 3:16 is from the Hebrew word mashal, which can be used for oppressive rule, but rule itself does not imply oppression.22
Since mashal is not necessarily a negative form of rule, it seems that either 1) the fact of male rule is not new, but now that sin has entered the picture male rule will be tainted with sin, or 2) the fact of male rule is new; it is in itself one of the consequences of sin. However, since Genesis has said nothing before this about one sex ruling the other, a change seems to be implied.23
To the man, God said,
Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, “You must not eat of it,” cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil [‘itstsabon] you will eat of it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.”
The man would suffer because he had listened to his wife. Did this mean that he was not supposed to listen to her before? No, the problem is not in who he listened to, but that he listened (in the sense of obeying) when she suggested what was, in fact, a sin. There would be nothing wrong with a man listening to his wife if she suggested that he sample a strawberry. Listening is a problem only if sin is being suggested; this verse does not imply anything about God’s original design for male-female roles.
Because of sin, the earth is cursed, and the man’s work would be greatly increased. Food would become hard to get, and the man would eventually die and return to the ground.24 At least the latter part of the prediction applies to women as well as men, and in many cultures, women have to toil for food as much as men do, or even more. The negative consequences on family life—although given to the woman—would also affect the man. Both Adam’s curse and Eve’s curse contained elements applicable to the other.
When God told the woman about the marital consequences of sin, it was not because she represented family life more than the man did; similarly, when God told the man about death, it was not because he represented humanity more than the woman did. Genesis makes the point that the man and woman both sinned, and both suffered the consequences. Genesis does not say that there is any significance to which sex sinned first.
Paul’s comments on the first sin
Romans 5:12-19 teaches that all humanity was sentenced to death because of Adam’s sin; it is sometimes said that this shows that Adam represented humanity, not only because he was first, but because he was male, implying male authority over females.
However, this makes the mistake mentioned earlier: When Paul uses Genesis to support his point, it is hazardous for us to try to use his point to interpret what else Genesis means, because Paul is not intending to explain Genesis. Rather, he is using small portions of Genesis to make his specific point, and we are misusing his words if we try to turn them into something Paul did not intend, i.e., a commentary on Genesis.
In verse 12, Paul says that sin entered the world through one anthropos, which means a human, either male or female. Paul could have easily used aner, which means a male, but he did not, showing that he is not concerned about the sex of the first sinner. For Paul’s purpose, gender is irrelevant. In the last part of verse 12, Paul uses the plural of anthropos to make his point: death spread to all humans, because all [humans] sinned, including Adam and Eve, who sinned essentially at the same time.
Paul then says that death reigned from Adam until Moses (v. 14). He is not saying that Adam was the first person to die. He may be alluding to the fact that Adam was the person to whom humanity’s death sentence was given, but more likely, he is referring to Adam as the first human. He is designating a time period, from creation to Moses, and he does so by naming the first person, Adam.
Paul focuses on Adam because he is using him as an antetype, or analogy for Christ. The first human, Adam, foreshadowed the first of God’s new humanity, Christ. The analogy would be unnecessarily complicated if Paul had used both Adam and Eve.
In verses 15-18, Paul says that the many (i.e., all humanity) died because of the trespass of “the one,” apparently referring to the transgression of Adam mentioned in v. 14. In Genesis 3, humanity’s death sentence was given to Adam, even though it applied to Eve as well, and Eve was subject to the death penalty from the instant she sinned.
Throughout this discussion, Paul says nothing to indicate that Adam represented humanity because he was male. His theological point is different: Adam is contrasted with Christ, his sin is contrasted with Christ’s righteousness, and the death sentence given to humanity through Adam contrasts with the free gift of righteousness given through Christ. Adam is the point of contrast that Paul uses to preach Christ as the solution to the death sentence that applies to all humanity, without respect to sex.
Summary
What does Genesis 3 tell us about male-female relations? Very little, directly—its focus is on how sin entered the human race. Here is what it tells us:
1) The woman was deceived in some way and sinned by eating the forbidden fruit. The man, instead of resisting the sin, ignored God’s warning, ate the fruit and blamed his wife.
2) The text also shows that God makes some gender distinctions, although their full significance is not made clear in Genesis.
3) Sin affected the roles of male and female, and verse 16 tells us that the man would rule the woman.
Genesis 1 gives both male and female rule over creation. Genesis 2 describes what Adam did before Eve was created, and then describes the woman as similar to the man; it says nothing directly about one person having authority over another. Genesis 3, however, tells us that the man would rule the woman. The chapter concludes by saying that Adam named his wife Eve, and God gave them animal skins for clothing and expelled them from the garden.
In our next paper, we will examine what the rest of the Pentateuch says about male and female roles.
Endnotes
1. The relationship between male and female in marriage is not automatically determinative for roles within the church. These spheres are related, but not identical. Although the focus of our study is roles within the church, we will look at the Old Testament passages to provide a background for New Testament passages, with the understanding that Old Testament society and worship is not necessarily a model for what the church should do today. Further, our conclusions about male-female relations within the church may or may not apply to relationships within marriages.
2. Raymond C. Ortland, “Male-Female Equality and Male Headship: Genesis 1-3,” pages 95-112 in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism (edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem; Wheaton: Crossway, 1991), pages 97, 480. This book is the most thorough defense of the conservative position.
3. This paper does not specify what the “image” is. An article on our web site argues that Jesus reveals to us what the true image is—and the focal point, the characteristic of God that we need most to be conformed to, is love, not power or appearance. See http://www.wcg.org/lit/gospel/imagegod.htm
4. Ortland, 97. On page 98, Ortland speaks for the conservative consensus when he writes: “Who, I wonder, is teaching that men only bear God’s image? No contributor to this volume will be found saying that.”
5. Thomas R. Schreiner, “Head Coverings, Prophecies and the Trinity: 1 Corinthians 11:2-16,” pages 124-39 in Piper and Grudem; here, pages 132-33.
6. Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (New International Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 515.
7. C.K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Black’s New Testament Commentary; London: A&C Black, 1971), 252.
8. Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (Word Biblical Commentary 1; Waco: Word, 1987), 68.
9. Many interpreters have offered suggestions about the symbolism implied in the rib. For example, Matthew Henry wrote, “Woman is not made of a man’s head to climb over him, she is not made of his feet to be trampled on, but from his rib to be by his side as an equal, under his arm to be protected and close to his heart to be loved.” No matter how appealing this symbolism is, it cannot be proven that this was the original intent.
10. “Though they are equal in nature, that man names woman (cf. 3:20) indicates that she is expected to be subordinate to him, an important presupposition in the ensuing narrative” (Wenham, 70). See also Schreiner, 207.
11. Linda Belleville writes, “Naming in antiquity was a way of memorializing an event or capturing a distinctive attribute. It was not an act of control or power” (chapter 2 in Beck and Blomberg, p. 143).
12. Leah and Rachel named the sons of Jacob; only Benjamin was named by Jacob (Gen. 29-30; 35:18). Moses and Samuel were also named by women (Ex. 2:10; 1 Sam. 1:20).
13. “Israelite marriage was usually patrilocal, that is, the man continued to live in or near his parents’ home” (Wenham, 70). Psalm 45:10 advises the woman to leave her parents.
14. Richard M. Davidson, “Headship, Submission, and Equality in Scripture,” pp. 259-95 in Women in Ministry: Biblical and Historical Perspectives (edited by Nancy Vyhmeister; Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press), 261.
15. Thomas R. Schreiner has no evidence to suggest that “God likely commissioned Adam to instruct Eve about this command” (chapter 4 of Two Views on Women in Ministry (ed. James R. Beck and Craig L. Blomberg [Counterpoints; Grand Rapids: Zondervan], 203).
16. Schreiner argues that Hebrew readers would assume the laws of primogeniture (ibid.).
17. Beck and Blomberg, “Reflections on Complementarian Essays,” in Two Views on Women in Ministry, 312.
18. When Paul says that “the head of woman is man” (v. 3), Paul may be referring to authority (that is a question for a later paper), but the rest of the passage argues on the basis of honor and dishonor, not of authority. Men and women have an equal right to prophesy, and their prophecies are of equal authority; the only question in this passage is the manner in which they prophesy. That is why we say above that Paul is not addressing the authority of men and women. That is at best a tangential comment, not the main subject.
19. Beck and Blomberg note that “verses 11-12 may suggest that the new creation in Christ goes beyond God’s original creation. Clearly it will in the world to come” (312).
20. When God pronounced a punishment on Adam, he did not hold Adam accountable for what Eve had done—Eve had to give account for herself (Mary Seltzer, “Women Elders … Sinners or Saints?,” 59; unpublished paper available at http://churchwomen.tripod.com/Women%20seltzer.doc).
21. The Hebrew word is also used in Gen. 4:7 and Song of Solomon 7:10. Susan Foh, a conservative, argues that God is predicting that even though women will desire to master their husbands, the men will continue to rule over the women. (Women and the Word of God: A Response to Biblical Feminism [Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1979], 68-69). Ortland also accepts this view (108-9). The more traditional interpretation is that women will want the companionship and protection of men despite the sorrow involved in childbirth.
22. Mashal is used for the sun and moon ruling over the day and night (Gen. 1:18), for Joseph ruling over Egypt (45:8), and for Israel to rule over other nations (Deut. 15:6). The Israelites requested Gideon to mashal over them, and he replied that God would mashal over them. “The precise nature of the rule is as various as the real situations in which the action or state so designated occur” (Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, 1:534).
23. William Webb points out that biblical curses often include a change of status vis-à-vis other people, creating a hierarchy where none existed before (Slaves, Women and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis [Downers Grove: InterVarsity], 117-19). The word curse is not always used in these, just as it is not for Eve and Adam.
24. The death sentence applied to both men and women, so why was it given to the man only? Linda Belleville suggests a plausible literary reason: “The impact on the man is related to the ground from which he was taken…. The impact on the woman is related to the man from whose rib she was formed” (Women Leaders and the Church: Three Crucial Questions [Baker, 1999], 104); several Hebrew words have been deleted from the quote without indicating the omissions by ellipses.
Keith Brittain, superintendent of the Mid-Atlantic
district, was born in 1943 in Harrogate, England. He attended Stamford School in
the United Kingdom and attended Ambassador College, Bricket Wood, England, from
1962 to 1966. After graduation from college, Keith emigrated to Canada. There he
worked in quality control for Dominion Textile in Montreal. He and his wife,
Marian, were married in 1967.
In 1968 Keith was hired by the WCG in Pasadena. From 1969 to 1978, he served in the Canadian ministry as assistant pastor in Ottawa and Montreal and as pastor in Cornwall, Ontario, and Plattsburgh, New York.
After a year’s sabbatical (1978 to 1979) in Pasadena, he was assigned to the U.S. ministry. Keith then served as pastor in Las Cruces and Roswell, New Mexico, and El Paso, Texas (1979 to 1986). Health problems caused Keith to have to go on disability for two years, after which he served as associate pastor in San Francisco and Oakland, California. As his health improved, he was able to pastor in New Bern and Wilmington, North Carolina (1991 to 1997) and Charlotte, North Carolina (1997 to 2000).
In 1996 Keith was asked to serve as the district superintendent for the Mid-Atlantic district. He considers it “a special and wonderful privilege to have been able to serve the church during its time of transition over the last 10 years.”
Keith expresses his philosophy for personal ministry as, “Wherever you are going, take Jesus with you.”
Keith and Marian have three children (Debbie, Lance and Kara) and three grandchildren (Chase, Sarah and James). Keith and Marian consider themselves fortunate that all their children and grandchildren live within a day’s driving distance.
Asheville, North Carolina, and Greenville, South Carolina: pastoral team: John Huffman, Raleigh Blackman and Henry Merrill.
Augusta, Georgia, Columbia and Orangeburg, South Carolina: John and Jolie Moskel.
Baltimore, Maryland: Peter and Charlotte Whitting.
Boone and Hickory, North Carolina: Paul David and Emma Lee Kurts.
Charleston, South Carolina: Tommie and Josephine Grant.
Charlotte, North Carolina: Martin and Geneen Manuel.
Cumberland, Maryland: Al and Shirley Dittmer.
Dillon, South Carolina: David Mioduski.
Fayetteville, North Carolina: Greg and Susan Williams.
Frederick-Chewsville, Maryland: Richard and Henrietta Kissel.
Front Royal, Virginia: Richard and Pam Ridgell.
Greensboro, North Carolina: Joel and Karen Irusta.
Greenville, North Carolina: Tom and Connie Whitmire.
Greenville, South Carolina: pastoral team: Richard Stillwell and Robert Vischer.
Jacksonville and Wilmington, North Carolina: Charles and Dixie Marino.
Harrisburg, Selinsgrove and York, Pennsylvania: Steve and Silvia Burns.
Marion, North Carolina: Tony and Heather McKinney.
Marion, South Carolina: Howard and Winonia Blakeney.
Newark and Seaford, Delaware: Raymond and Cindi Taylor.
Portsmouth, Virginia: Tim and Donna Brassell.
Richmond, Virginia, North: Keith Brittain.
Richmond, Virginia, South: Charles and Kate Adams.
Raleigh and Wilson, North Carolina: Don and Geri Mason.
Roanoke, Virginia: Everett and Mary Sue Craft.
Savannah, Georgia: Jeff Snyder.
Washington, D.C., West: Keith Brittain.
Winston-Salem, North Carolina: Frank and Kim Ancona.
By Dan Rogers
Superintendent of U.S. ministers
PASADENA—In this column we are looking at issues addressed in the new WCG-USA Church Administration Manual. Among these is our leadership ethos—the leadership principles that inform and shape leadership in our denominational departments and in our congregations.
We began by looking at shared leadership. This time we’ll examine two principles: love-motivated leadership and mission and vision-driven leadership. It’s important that we consider these two together.
Leaders within the body of Christ are called to lead with balance—as shepherds and overseers (1 Peter 5:1-4, where the specific reference is to elders). A shepherd-leader leads with tender care. An overseer leads with diligence and purposeful intent.
Peter seems to be calling for a balance of the two. To be tender (like a shepherd) without being purposeful (like an overseer), leads to aimlessness. But to be diligent and purposeful (like an overseer) without having tender care and concern (like a shepherd), is ineffective at best and abusive at worst.
Our goal is that our leaders be both love-motivated, and mission-and vision-driven.
Love-motivated leadership
Peter notes that leaders can be wrongly motivated by a mere sense of duty, by greed or by a desire for power (5:2-3). But the only appropriate and Christlike motive for leading in Christ’s body is love of the sort that Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 13:4-8: “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.”
As we note in the manual: “Love-motivated leadership promotes the fellowship and caring that is essential to Christian community. The church is to be a community of individuals who have equal standing before God—united in a mutual love for one another that expresses the outgoing, mutual life and love of the triune God who is eternally Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”
Thus we’re talking here about being motivated by God’s love, which by God’s grace is “poured out into our hearts by the Holy Spirit” (Romans 5:5).
In the one of the sessions I’m teaching in the 2004 regional conferences, I address the environment that leaders help create within a congregation. If that environment is to be conducive to the birth and growth of disciples of Jesus, it must be characterized by what we call “an atmosphere of love.” Leaders play a significant role in creating and sustaining such an atmosphere.
To be love-motivated as a leader in the body of Christ is to share in Jesus’ heart and to obey his new command. Jesus said, “As I have loved you, so you must love one another” (John 13:34). In our training of leaders we often refer to this as Jesus’ Great Commandment.
Mission- and vision-driven leadership
Motivated by love, leaders must be passionate and skillful in leading others toward fulfillment of the church’s mission. That mission is the Great Commission to make disciples (Matthew 28:19). And so we talk about being motivated by the Great Commandment to pursue the Great Commission.
Mission-driven leaders are passionate about the Great Commission. They also have a clear vision of what obedience to Jesus’ command to make disciples will look like as it emerges within the ministry they lead. That ministry may be the entire denomination, a single congregation or a ministry segment within a congregation.
No matter the setting, we share the same general mission, and leaders must clearly and persistently communicate a vision for how that mission will be lived out in and through the lives of those they lead.
As noted in the manual: “Visionary leaders are catalysts for change—able to lead members to embrace and pursue clear and attainable mission-enhancing strategies and goals. Such change involves inspiring within people both new expectations and the desire to sacrifice to reach forward.”
This is no small task. And we recognize that not all leaders are equally gifted in seeing and in communicating the vision. That’s why we need each other and why we need to work together as leaders. That’s also why each leader needs to seek to be deeply connected to Christ, who gives us his love and his vision for mission effectiveness. And that’s also why we each need to seek equipping to be more skillful in leading in these ways.
In our regional and district training conferences, we seek to communicate a clear and compelling vision of the church living out Jesus’ command to make disciples. We seek to help leaders first become personally devoted to the Great Commission, and then lead others to do likewise.
The current regional conferences focus on achieving disciplemaking balance in our congregational programming so that each congregation participates in the fullness of Jesus’ four-part disciplemaking strategy: winning the lost, building the believer, equipping the worker and multiplying the shepherd-leader.
This strategy is not merely another set of programs; it’s a disciplemaking life-style lived out by leaders who inspire and train others to follow where they have already gone.
It is challenging to lead in the body of Christ. At times it means joining Jesus in suffering, but Peter reassures us with this promise: “When the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away” (1 Peter 5:4).
I thank God for our leaders, and I challenge us all to be love-motivated and mission- and vision-driven.
By Mike Feazell
DALLAS, Texas—U.S. district superintendents met in Dallas July 23 to 27 to prepare for full implementation of the church’s new financial model and discuss strategies for leadership development and youth and children’s ministry.
CONFERENCE ATTENDEES—District
superintendents,
wives and Church Administration staff at Dallas conference.
[Photos by Mike Feazell]
Dan Rogers, director of U.S. Church Administration, opened the conference by discussing trends and developments within the denomination in the United States, and by considering the challenges the denomination will face in the coming year.
Ted Johnston, superintendent of the Northeast district and general editor of the church’s Financial Management Manual, examined details of the manual and the new financial model. He was joined by fellow U.S. youth ministry coordinator Jeb Egbert for a session on goals and administration of regional summer camps and developing new leaders within the WCG.
Ambassador College of Christian Ministry
The discussion on education focused primarily on the web-based Ambassador College of Christian Ministry (ACCM), which is the basic ministry training arm of the Worldwide Church of God.
Russell Duke, ACCM president, was joined by program administrators John McLean and Aub Warren. Mr. McLean is national director of the WCG in Australia, and serves as director of ACCM’s associate degree in Christian Ministry. Mr. Warren manages Pacific Training & Development (a corporate training company owned by the Australian church) and ACCM’s communication and development activities.
ACCM was originally developed by WCG Australia as a denominational ministry training and development resource, and the Australian Office continues to facilitate the online operation of the institution for the church worldwide. This program was transitioned into the associate’s program of ACCM.
DISCUSSION ON EDUCATION—From
left: Ken Williams,
Aub Warren, John McLean and Russell Duke.
The ACCM associate degree in Christian ministry provides online ministry preparation courses for those serving as volunteer pastors and ministry leaders, as well as anyone interested in quality education in Christian studies. ACCM’s classes are open to all, and classes can be taken for credit (assessed) or audit (not assessed). A master’s program provides advanced courses for pastors who already possess a relevant bachelors degree.
“ACCM courses are designed to be practical and immediately useful in a pastor’s or ministry leader’s work in the congregation,” Mr. McLean explained. “Knowledge is of little value unless it is put to use. ACCM combines information with opportunities for practical application.”
Mr. Rogers added: “ACCM training is a fundamental component of effective leadership preparation for our pastors and ministry leaders. The low cost of ACCM is a blessing for the church. Those who are serious about ministry will appreciate the opportunity to receive high quality formal education. This is a key part of any church budget.”
Keith Brittain, Mid-Atlantic district superintendent, said: “Pastoral education and shepherd-leader development will be so much more practical and feasible through ACCM’s online format. The college brings together the learning of knowledge with practical application and a mentoring relationship with WCG instructors and ministry supervisors.”
Lorenzo Arroyo, Spanish language superintendent, described the college as a practical and accessible online training venue for furthering the disciplemaking goals of the church—to win the lost, build the faithful and equip the worker.
“New pastors without seminary training will be directed toward ACCM for their in-service training,” Mr. Rogers said.
Enrollment details for Ambassador College of Christian Ministry are available at www.ambascol.org.
James Roberts, president of the Center for Church Based Training (CCBT), provided an update on the Discovery series, which many U.S. congregations use as a basis for growing in discipleship and spiritual formation in a small group setting.
In addition to leadership identification and training, another outcome of the conference was a commitment to emphasize children’s ministry in 2005.
According to Charles Albrecht, operations and budget manager of Church Administration: “As a denomination, we need to place a strong emphasis on children’s and youth ministry in order to effectively identify future leaders.”
The conference took place at the Omni Park West Hotel in Dallas. The Omni has hosted numerous WCG conferences over the years, including the annual South Central regional conference and conferences for new pastors.
“The Omni staff are a gracious and accommodating group of people, and they often comment on the fine example our members set,” said Arnold Clauson, conference coordinator and pastor of the Dallas North church. “ ‘Some people claim to be Christians, but you people live like it,’ they’ve told me. Our relationship with the hotel has only grown stronger through the years.”
YOUTH MINISTRY TALK—From
left: Randy Bloom,
Jeb Egbert, Ted Johnston, Curtis May and Allan Barr.
Notice of Nondiscriminatory Policy as to Students
Ambassador College of Christian Ministry does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national and ethnic origin in administration of its educational policies, admissions policies, scholarship and loan programs and other school administered programs.
GIANT CHAIR
SWING
BLUE RIDGE MOUNTAINS FOOTHILLS, South Carolina—“I don’t want to hear about Jesus. I don’ t even believe in God.”
It is not surprising to hear a comment such as that at Higher Ground Summer Camp, when about 30 of the 177 campers are unchurched or unsaved. Many congregations have seen the powerful ministry that takes place at our WCG summer camps and invite and even sponsor unchurched youths to go to camp with their youth groups. Higher Ground also included a number of non-WCG youths who found our camp web site, www.carolinacamp.com, while searching for summer camps to attend.
ELIZABETH
MULLINS
The boy who made the comment above on the second day of camp, was baptized along with 20 others on the last day of camp. Five other youths counseled for baptism but were not baptized at camp.
While it is impossible to know everyone’s heart, I believe everyone left camp as a believer in Jesus the Son of God—even the three who professed atheism.
When I talked with many of the unchurched youths toward the end of camp, most expressed a desire to find a church to go to after camp or to begin attending church with the group that brought them.
CAMP
SETTING: Photos by Shane
Bazer and Kim Jenner.
Higher Ground summer camp is on a gorgeous property in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains in South Carolina and has all the typical fun summer camp stuff such as a zip line, giant chair swing, water polo, tennis, flag football, basketball, volleyball, a challenge course and more. But it is Jesus that makes it a life-changing experience.
 ZIP LINE |
 WATER POLO |
 BAPTISM OF SEAN WELLS |
It is always surprising to me that the campers consistently rank praise and worship and the chapel messages among the top five activities at camp. But these youths come to camp thirsty, and when we show them in a clear and relevant way where they can get living waters, they are anxious to begin drinking.
If your congregation would like to grow its youth ministry and the kingdom by helping sponsor some unchurched youths or even send your own church youths to Higher Ground 2005 or another WCG camp, now is a good time to start planning. Higher Ground accepts youths ages 10 to 18. Applications, videos, pictures and more are available at the carolinacamp.com web site.
BIG BEAR, California—God blessed us with a spiritually enriching week, 7,000 feet above sea level at Cedar Lake Camp in Big Bear Village, July 4 to 10.
One hundred sixty-two campers (119 teens and 43 preteens), 56 staff and three children were uplifted and sustained by the love and power of the Holy Spirit. Our 221 participants represented a 10 percent increase in attendance over last summer.
 BAPTISMAL PROCESSIONAL—Zach Wegner leads campers to baptism ceremony on last day of camp. [Photos by Thomas C. Hanson, Janet Morrison and Michael Morrison] |
New activities this year were a drama class, BB guns, a canoe obstacle race, two elements of high ropes challenge for each teen, and a water carnival and star-gazing through a telescope for preteens.
Two teen praise bands led us in praise and worship during the week—Hearts of Praise from NewLife Fellowship and The Lost Testament from New Hope Christian Fellowship. The teens from Desert Oasis Community Church presented an original 53-minute Christian film to the camp, titled My Best Friend.
 Hannah Wegner being baptized. |
More than 40 campers made first-time commitments or rededicated their lives to Jesus Christ. On Thursday, July 8, Pastor Bermie Dizon invited those who felt called to missions, ministry, Christian education or camp leadership to come forward to receive a prayer of blessing and the laying on of hands. One hundred out of 119 teens came forward to be commissioned.
Camp culminated with a baptismal procession of 250 people, including parents, following bagpiper Zach Wegner to the lakefront, where we baptized 14 campers. We praise God for demonstrating his love and grace to the campers and staff of SEP 2004.
 Dorms 6B and 8B at archery. |
Joe Apolinar and Jessica Morgan at dance class. |
 Tierra Boyd at the lake. |
 Cameron Singleton leaps for the bar on the challenge course. |
 From left: Stephanie Tkach, Betsy Hanson, Lacey Zhorne. |
 Curtis May: Christian living class. |
 Dorm 3G at the Novelty Olympics. |
 Dorm 5B |
 Challenge course instructor and group. |
 Canoeing on the lake. |
Tiffany Parker, Felicia
Williamson, Cassandra Alaniz and
Laura Morrison.
Youth Ministry
Evangelizing
postmodern youths
By Ted Johnston
National youth ministry
co-director
CANTON, Ohio—To lead a person to Christ you have to reach them where they are and communicate with them in a way they can relate to.
The world our youths are growing up in is dramatically different from the one I experienced. I grew up in the modern age dominated by Enlightenment-era, scientific, linear thinking. The world of the emerging generation is increasingly postmodern—a change with huge implications for how we evangelize youths.
This month I share (with the author’s permission) excerpts from an article written concerning this topic by Mark Tittley, director of Sonlife Ministries in Africa. Mark addresses methods for evangelizing postmodern youths by summarizing key points from several helpful books.
By Mark Tittley
Kevin Ford, in Jesus for a New Generation, speaks about process evangelism, where postmodern youth (and also adults who are postmodern thinkers) are convinced of the reality of God’s love not by propositional arguments or one-time evangelistic rallies, but by a daily consistent, practical demonstration that Christianity works and that God’s love is real.
In process evangelism, pre-Christian people discover the reality of God and the love of God in the transparency and love of God’s people.
Process evangelism is quite similar to the patterns used by Jesus with his disciples. He entered into their world, he identified with their pain and their broken condition, he devoted great amounts of time building his life into their lives, he committed himself to a process of evangelizing—not just an evangelistic event.
Process evangelism can be distilled down to four essentials:
1. Authenticity—we must be authentic and committed to Jesus Christ. The Christian life must be the core reality of our lives, not just an act.
2. Caring—we must demonstrate genuine care and unconditional love for the pre-Christian—regardless of their level of belief or lifestyle. This does not mean that we never confront sin, but we must always show love and acceptance of the individual, no matter what the sin.
3. Trust—we must demonstrate absolute integrity, truthfulness, loyalty, confidentiality and openness. Only after we have established a deep level of trust will we be able to share how the story of Jesus Christ has intersected with our life.
4. Transparency—we must be real and allow others to see the reality of our lives through our openness and vulnerability. We must admit our mistakes, confess our sin and tell the story of our pain and our problems so they can see God at work in our lives.
 Process evangelism is quite similar to the patterns used by Jesus with his disciples. He entered their world, he identified with their pain and their broken condition. |
There was a time when we could preach at people and they would respond to the gospel. But preaching at people doesn’t work too well anymore. We can’t just come at people—we have to go with them. We have to get into their world, just as Jesus came into our world and became one of us.
This is called incarnational evangelism: becoming incarnate or being figuratively born into another person’s world. The incarnational approach to evangelism has five steps:
1. Do what they do—as we bond with non-Christians trust is built, which lays the foundation for evangelism. While the traditional approach to evangelism involves inviting people to do what we do, the incarnational approach involves going to do what they do.
2. Enjoy and accept them—if I just go through the motions of doing what pre-Christians do and don’t give them my heart, they will feel patronized, not loved. Evangelism is most effective when it is natural and unprogrammed—when we truly enjoy spending time with and talking to the people we are witnessing to.
3. Affirm what is good in their values—as Christians we have a tendency to be judgmental. We are afraid that any affirmation we give will make them believe that we agree with all their values and even their sinful habits. But refusing to affirm what is good in their value system creates distance between us. It also ignores the fact that God is already at work in their hearts— planting biblical learnings and values in their mind and drawing them close to himself.
4. Share the story of Jesus in their terms—this is the transition step and is the most tricky. We may have done the hard work of building trust and incarnating ourselves into their worlds, but then we can blow it by using church jargon that they don’t understand and which turns them off.
5. Invite them to follow Jesus in a way they can relate to—there are two dangers here—either we get so religious that we scare the person off, or we never get around to inviting the pre-Christian at all. But if we have really gotten to know the person, it will not be difficult to ask whether they are up to following Jesus.
Jimmy Long, in Generating Hope, explores how evangelism needs to change among youth today. A transition has occurred from the Enlightenment era to the postmodern era—and a new approach is needed.
 Share the story of Jesus in their terms. |
While the church must continue to tell the old, old story, it must now do so by helping people to consider the plausibility and authenticity of the gospel—not by making a rational defense of its credibility. Christians will need to live out their faith in front of people so that it allows them to see that what they believe is credible.
The need for story is still relevant. Narrative evangelism involves a merger of “our story” with “God’s story” as we share it with others. People will make a commitment to Christ when they hear a story that seems coherent and rings true to them.
The story that the Christian community adopts is Jesus’ story—Jesus’ life. To become a Christian (to convert) is to adopt the story of Christ so that one becomes part of the story line. It is possible that people today are more open than ever to hear God’s story because of the emptiness and brokenness of postmodern life. The gospel story intersects with this generation’s experience in a number of ways:
They feel alienated: God’s story brings reconciliation.
They feel betrayed: God’s story restores broken trust.
They feel insecure: God’s story brings a sense of safety within a protective, healing community.
They lack a defined identity: God’s story brings a new identity in Christ.
They feel unwanted and unneeded: God’s story offers them a place of belonging, a place for involvement, and a place where their lives can be used in service of a purpose that is larger than themselves.
The conversion process in narrative evangelism can be called a “collision of narratives”—our story collides with God’s story—his story challenges our story and makes us question our reality.
While this postmodern generation may not be looking for the truth, it is looking for what is real. Our apologetic will need to emphasize an inclusive community that welcomes people to come in and observe the reality of the Christian faith. It needs to emphasize a loving community that reaches out to the needy and the hurting. It also needs to emphasize the hope that we have.
There are three elements in this apologetic:
Faithful Community—today we need to establish the plausibility of the faith long before we talk about its credibility. Postmoderns will best understand a holy, just and forgiving God when they see a holy, just and forgiving community of believers. Postmoderns will be impressed when they see truth lived out in community. So, evangelism is possible only when the community doing the evangelism lives out the Christian message.
Loving Community—Jesus stressed that we would be known by our love. The greatest apologetic for Christianity is a loving community. At the heart of the gospel is a person—not a proposition. As long as we try to debate with this generation on the basis of right and wrong we will turn them off and turn them away. We will, however, build bridges to them as we demonstrate compassion to them through performing deeds of love as God’s community.
Hopeful Community—this generation is struggling to find meaning and hope for the future. We will have to empathize with the pain and sufferings of this generation. The community of faith can offer an eternal or heavenly hope where tears and pain will no longer exist (Revelation 21:1-5).
How then can we go about loving our neighbors and pointing them to Christ? There are six phases in a postmodern conversion:
1. Discontentment With Life— people who are content with their lives are not usually open to the gospel. A sense of discontentment with one’s life can lead to people finding Christ.
2. Confusion Over Meaning—media slogans like: “just do it” discourage people from a search for meaning. Some have given up the search because they have been frustrated in their pursuits of meaning.
3. Contact with Christians—unfortunately many seekers do not have a very high opinion of Christians. Maybe they have had negative encounters in the past or they have wrong stereotypes. Christians will need to develop trust that will lead to breaking down negative stereotypes.
Once evangelistic friendships have been developed the following guidelines apply: (a) issues of the heart more than the mind must be addressed; (b) realize that it will take a long time for the person to make a commitment; and (c) the friendship must be moved into a community.
4. Converted to Community—it is important that individuals become involved in the Christian community as part of their decision-making process. This may involve a small group, a seeker event or a social outing.
Postmodern people make decisions based on their experience within the community. The evangelistic process is more of a community affair than a one-to-one encounter. Postmoderns experience a two-stage conversion: they become converted to the community—over a period of time they begin to identify with the community and feel a sense of belonging. At this point they may be a member of the community without having made a commitment to Christ. The next stage is making a conversion to Christ.
5. Converted to Christ—as the seeker identifies with the community they may not be aware of the need to make a commitment to Christ. This may form over a period of time or it may take place at a specific moment. Either way, a commitment to Christ needs to take place.
6. A Calling to God’s Heavenly Vision—we must help people understand God’s story, from creation to Christ’s Second Coming [and beyond]. This understanding will give them the meaning they have been lacking in the past. They need a perspective that is lived from the future (Christ’s return) in the present (pain and suffering) while being anchored to the past (Christ’s death and resurrection).
Tim Celek and Dieter Zander, in Inside the Soul of a New Generation, present a model for evangelism based on Paul’s encounter on Mars Hill in Acts 17. They suggest four guidelines:
Real—we must work hard at being vulnerable, transparent and [showing that we are] imperfect. People will relate to us when we are honest about our struggles.
Rousing—as we use our genuine, honest experiences, we will rouse people from their hiding places.
Relevant—it must address the questions this generation is asking and not those of a previous generation.
Relational—more and more evangelism is going to happen through relationships. The gospel is going to be communicated more incarnationally than propositionally or cognitively.
 More and more evangelism is going to happen through relationships. |
Celek and Zander say: “[Those] with a postmodern mindset … process truth relationally. In order for them to sort through an issue, or delve into the deep waters of their emotional makeup, they need time to process the radical message of Jesus. They need to think about it, talk about it among their friends, and talk about it some more.
That process probably isn’t going to be finished in an hour or two. Or maybe even a month or two. When you try to wrap things up nice and tidy, [they] sometimes will see that as being unreal and trite” (page 114).
Ministers, members meet
for regional conference
in Denver
DENVER, Colorado—On Friday, June 25, at the Sheraton—Denver Tech Center hotel, the Rocky Mountain district conference began with a class on Creating a Disciplemaking Environment in Your Church, taught by Dan Rogers, superintendent of U.S. ministers.
Friday evening found participants hearing the keynote address given by Pastor General Joseph Tkach on “What Is God Doing Through Our Denomination?”
Throughout Saturday, Mr. Rogers presented a session on “Growing a Healthy Church” with ample dialogue as pastors and members broke into small groups to analyze their current programs according to what was being taught.
Saturday night Robert Meade, Computer Information Systems manager in Pasadena, led pastors and treasurers through the processes involved in the new financial model. Bruce Turner, treasurer for The House of Faith, a WCG congregation in Denver, spoke about his positive experiences with the new system in the pilot program over the previous 18 months.
Sunday morning, James Roberts, president of the Center for Church Based Training in Dallas, Texas, presented an overview of the new Discovery discipleship training course. This course, which can be used in Sunday schools or small group settings, is available to pastors and congregations
Throughout Sunday, attendees chose among classes including Dedicating Offering in Worship Services, The Whys & Hows of Money Leadership, Developing Youth-Friendly Worship Services, and Colorado SEP—A Tool for Your Church.
Sunday morning worship services and communion were led by Dr. Tkach and Randy Bloom, Central district coordinator. The last class concluded at 5 p.m.
ALTADENA, California—From his infancy, Mark Morris has faced challenges. Mark was born two months premature and has suffered from cerebral palsy all his life. Mark also suffers from myotonic dystrophy, which results in a loss of muscular control. The loss of muscular control has resulted in an inability to swallow—Mark now gets his food through a feeding tube.
Physical limitations? Yes. Spiritual limitations? No. In a testament to Mark’s incredible will and his love for God, Mark was baptized during church services at Community Life Fellowship June 26.
Mark’s friends Ron Dailey and Derek Gaddes carried him into the water while his friend Richard Lane baptized him and prayed over him. As the baptismal ceremony ended and Mark was carried back out of the water, it was hard to find a dry eye in the congregation.
Mark taught us all a lesson about courage and passion for Jesus. Mark’s friends (Ron, Derek and Richard) reminded us of the love we are to have for one another. And Jesus reminded us that a person is not whole who is whole on the outside, a person is whole who is whole on the inside.
COMMITMENT TO
CHRIST—From
left: Brian Wilson, Richard Lane, Ron
Dailey, Mark Morris and Derek Gaddes.
[Photo by Katherine Carter]
By Michael Morrison
Paul’s letter to the Romans is his most systematic presentation of the gospel. He explains human sinfulness and the forgiveness that we have in Christ (chapters 1-8). Starting in chapter 12, he moves into the practical results of the gospel.
In chapter 14, he addresses at length a specific problem in the first-century Roman churches—namely, that people had disagreements about different customs and religious convictions. Even though Paul had never been to Rome, he had heard about the controversies.
Disputable matters
“Accept those whose faith is weak,” Paul begins, “without passing judgment in disputable matters” (14:1, TNIV throughout). Here, we learn several important things:
l Some Christians are weak in the faith and, as verse 2 explains, they are overly restrictive.
l Weak-faith Christians should be accepted, not ridiculed. People grow in faith through love and acceptance, not through ostracism.
l Christians who think they are strong are sometimes tempted to look down on others.
l Some matters are disputable. The beliefs and practices that some Christians think are important are unimportant to others.
 One person’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another person, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. |
Paul then addresses the dispute in Rome: “One person’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another person, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables” (v. 2). Why did some people avoid meat? Perhaps they were influenced by ascetic philosophies, but more likely, the concerns came from Judaism. The terms “unclean” and “clean” (vv. 14, 20) were important in Judaism, and as we have seen, the letter to the Romans repeatedly addresses Jews and Gentiles as the most significant divisions in the church.
Some (but not all) Jews avoided meat because they could not be sure that the animals had been properly killed (see Dan. 1:8). Some Gentiles may have been just as cautious.
Accepting sin?
Let’s see how Paul dealt with this situation: “The one who eats everything must not look down on the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not condemn the one who does, for God has accepted that person” (v. 3). The strong-faith Christian should not belittle the weak Christian, and the weak one should not condemn the more permissive Christian.
What shocking advice! Imagine that you believe it is wrong to eat meat. Paul is not only calling you “weak,” he is also telling you not to condemn people you believe are sinning! Why? Because God accepts people on the basis of faith, not on works.
Paul did not mean that we should accept idolaters, fornicators, thieves and drunkards (1 Cor. 5:11). The New Testament clearly tells us to avoid certain behaviors. But it doesn’t address every situation and every behavior, and because of that, there will be differences of opinion within Christianity.
For example, if we are convinced that wine is bad, we should avoid wine. But we should not call all wine-drinkers sinners, nor should we separate from them. Wine is a disputable matter, and so are days and foods. These are matters for tolerance, not division and criticism.
Paul asks: “Who are you to judge someone else’s servants? To their own master they stand or fall” (v. 4). The Lord has called us to serve, not judge. If he has been so merciful as to include us, we must let him be merciful to them, too. He will manage his own servants. “They will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.”
Be fully convinced
Paul then addresses another difference of opinion in the Roman churches: “Some consider one day more sacred than another; others consider every day alike. Everyone should be fully convinced in their own mind” (v. 5).
In a church composed of Jews and Gentiles, what days would be considered better than others? For some, it would mean weekly Sabbaths and annual festivals; for others, it might mean superstitions about other days. Paul describes it in such a way as to cover both situations. People should act from conviction, not from fear of what others might think.
Astonishing! Paul is asking fully convinced Sabbath-keepers to be tolerant of people who ignore the Sabbath. They thought that Sabbath-breakers were unbelievers, but Paul says that they should be accepted. The Sabbath-keepers thought the Sabbath was essential, but Paul is saying that it is not.
And on the other side, Paul tells those who are strong in faith to respect the weak. They do not have to adopt their restrictions or let them dictate church policy, but they should accept them.
“Those who regard one day as special do so to the Lord. Those who eat meat do so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and those who abstain do so to the Lord and give thanks to God” (v. 6). Sabbath-keepers are responding to God as best they know how. So are the others. Meat-eaters and vegetarians are both trying to obey God. When we are trying to please God, we must be gracious toward one another’s doctrinal errors.
Judged by Christ
Our lives belong to Christ: “For we do not live to ourselves alone and we do not die to ourselves alone. If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord” (vv. 7-8). On the day of judgment, after we die, we will belong to Christ—but we also belong to him now, while we live. A promise of salvation on the day of judgment does not mean that we can live selfishly in this age.
“Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living” (v. 9). He is our Master both now and in our future.
“You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you look down on your brother or sister? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat” (v. 10). God will be the judge; we are not to usurp his role. We should not say, “They are too liberal to be real Christians”; nor should we say, “They are too legalistic to be real Christians.” We should let God decide that (see Matt. 7:1). We should not even look down on another believer.
Paul then quotes Isa. 45:23 to show that God will judge every person: “ ‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord, ‘every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God’ ” (v. 11). And Paul concludes, “So then, we will all give an account of ourselves to God” (v. 12).
Since God will judge each person, Paul exhorts, “Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another” (v. 13).
Avoid offense
Paul now speaks to the strong, to those who eat everything, and encourages them to be careful about their freedom. “Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister” (v. 13). We are to be considerate of their beliefs.
Paul makes his own position clear: “I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself” (v. 14). The Torah declared many things to be unclean, but Paul is convinced that in the Christian era, those ritual categories are obsolete. They no longer matter to God—but some people do not yet have that understanding.
 A Christian must balance two needs: 1) Do not let someone else’s conscience dictate what you do and 2) Do not let your behavior cause them to sin. |
“But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean.” If people think it wrong to eat pork, they should not eat pork, and others should not pressure them into doing it, because for them, it is wrong.
“If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother or sister for whom Christ died. Therefore do not let what you know is good to be spoken of as evil” (vv. 15-16). A Christian must balance two needs: 1) Do not let someone else’s conscience dictate what you do and 2) Do not let your behavior cause them to sin.
Christ calls us to be considerate of others, without letting their conscience dictate how we live. We cannot become so afraid of offending others that we conform to every sensitivity everyone has. Just because one person in our church thinks it is a sin to drink wine, does not mean that everyone else has to abstain.
Paul is talking about an offense so serious that the person would be spiritually destroyed—someone who might think, “If Christianity allows that, then I don’t want Christianity.”
“For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval” (vv. 17-18). That is, be willing to abstain, because the kingdom does not require you to exercise all your liberties. Righteousness does not require eating, nor does it require abstaining, because it comes through faith in Christ.
Good behavior does not earn us a place in God’s kingdom, for we all fall short, but it is a good reflection of what God’s reign produces—and his kingdom does not have rules about what we eat and drink.
A plea for peace
“Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification” (v. 19). We are to teach one another what is true, and try to live peaceably with one another despite our differences. With peace and mutual acceptance, people will learn the truth about foods and days.
Paul then warns the strong, who have the right doctrine but the wrong attitude: “Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall” (vv. 20-21). If you are too aggressive, you will drive the weak people away from Christ, and consequently “destroy the work of God” that is being done in their lives. Paul is not dealing with minor personal preferences, but major questions of faith and apostasy.
“So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God” (v. 22). Paul did not keep his own position a secret (v. 20)—but he did not badger the weak to eat and drink what he did. He did not pressure people to violate their own consciences.
Paul is clearly on the side of liberty, but he also sounds a warning: “Blessed are those who do not condemn themselves by what they approve” (v. 22). In other words, make sure that your freedom in Christ does not hurt others. Yes, you may eat pork, but if you pressure a weak person to eat pork and cause that person to fall away from Christ, you have sinned.
“But those who have doubts are condemned if they eat…” This reveals what the problem was. It was not that vegetarians were annoyed when others ate meat—rather, vegetarians were being pressured to eat meat themselves, even when they believed it was wrong. In their minds, they thought they were disobeying Christ, and the pressure was destroying their allegiance to him.
In such a case, “their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin” (v. 23). The problem was not in the food, but in their perception. The conscience should be obeyed—but it should also be educated.
On some matters, Christians may have different beliefs, but they should not push those beliefs onto others. People should not be tricked, shamed or coerced into behavioral change—they should be taught. It all comes back to faith. We are saved by faith, not by observing or avoiding certain days and foods.
Paul will continue this subject in the next chapter.
Questions for application
How can we know which matters are “disputable” and which are not? (v. 1)
Some people don’t ever seem to be “fully convinced” about what they do (v. 5). What would Paul say to them?
Peter withdrew from the Gentiles because he did not want to offend some Jewish believers, but Paul rebuked him for it (Gal. 2:11-14). How were those circumstances different from the Roman situation?
Christians who flaunt their freedoms can scandalize believers who are more cautious. Can cautious Christians also turn people away from Christ?
The Gospel of Mark, Lesson 21
A Lesson About Hard Hearts
Mark 4:1-13
Again Jesus began to teach by the lake.... the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. He told them, “... to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, ‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven.’ ”
By Mike Feazell
At first glance, this passage seems to say that Jesus taught in parables specifically for the purpose of preventing people from understanding what he was talking about. A closer look, however, reveals just the opposite.
Master teacher
Jesus was not deliberately trying to prevent his listeners from understanding what he was talking about. He was doing just the opposite—using parables as a means of relating the invisible kingdom of God to everyday, visible, real life examples and situations the common person could easily relate to.
Parables were a teaching method quite familiar to Jewish teachers and audiences. They were tools for making things easier to understand, not more difficult. In the hands of Jesus, the great master teacher, these tools would have been even more effective. He came to bring good news to the poor, not confuse them with stories impossible to comprehend.
Faithful
The key to understanding this passage lies in the scripture Jesus quoted to make his point to the disciples about the use of parables. He was quoting Isaiah 6:9-10, a passage that chided Israel’s blindness and deafness to God’s love. The translation is easily misunderstood unless the context of Israel’s struggle with God throughout its history is taken into consideration.
The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, noted this problem, and took care to include the sarcastic tone of the wording in its translation. The Septuagint, we should note, was the foremost translation of Jesus’ day. In his commentary on Mark, William Barclay paraphrased Jesus’ intent this way: “Do you remember what Isaiah once said? He said that when he came with God’s message to God’s people Israel in his day they were so dully un-understanding that you would have thought that God had shut instead of opening their minds; I feel like that today” (The Gospel of Mark, Westminster Press, 1975).
Israel, as God’s own people, had already failed to keep their covenant with God and had ended up a conquered people and an occupied nation, first by the Babylonians and eventually by the Romans.
But God promised to be faithful to his covenant regardless of Israel’s unfaithfulness (compare Malachi 4:6). He promised to redeem them in spite of themselves (compare Hosea 11:8-11), and he would do it through the Messiah, the Anointed One, who would be sent to redeem the people and bring them back to God.
But God knew that in the hardness of their hearts, they would also reject their own Messiah. As John wrote in the fourth Gospel, “He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.” But even that would not stop God from redeeming his people, and through them, the whole world.
In their rejection of Messiah, Israel’s sin against God would reach its full measure. They would kill their Savior, but God would raise him from the dead, and his death and resurrection would become the very means by which God would transform the hearts of not only Israel, but also the gentiles.
New heart
Jesus was saying that stubborn, hard-hearted people cannot understand the things of the kingdom of God even when they are taught in the plainest possible language. It takes a new heart, a heart only God can give (compare Ezekiel 36:26).
Sin alienates us from God, and since we are all sinners, we are all alienated from God—not because he rejects us (he is eternally faithful), but because we reject him. In our alienated state, we are incapable of reconciling ourselves to God. We neither know God nor want him meddling in our lives. Even our concept of God is askew; we think of him as a great butler in the sky who is not worth his salt unless he does everything we ask, or as an angry super-being who is always ready to dish out punishments.
Unless God himself takes the initiative to reconcile us to him, we remain helpless, with no future beyond death. That is exactly what he has done in Jesus Christ. In Jesus we learn exactly what God is like, because Jesus Christ is the exact representation of the Father (Hebrews 1:3; see also Colossians 1:19-20).
Gift
We learn through Jesus that God is merciful, patient and full of grace. God is not against humanity; he is for it. “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world,” Jesus said, “but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned...” Through Jesus, our minds are released from the bondage of sin, and we are freed to put our trust in our Creator and Redeemer.
No one understands the things of God apart from the grace he has made manifest in Jesus Christ. “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you” (Mark 4:11), Jesus told the disciples. Yet before his ascension, even they did not understand the parables, because their hearts were still hard, too. The Holy Spirit, who leads us into all truth, especially the truth of the gospel, soon melted their stony hearts into hearts of flesh, just as God had promised through Ezekiel.
God never forces us to love him, for love forced is not love at all. Instead, God frees our minds and hearts from all the barriers, rooted in sin, that would otherwise stand in the way. “His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness,” Peter would later write, “through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness” (2 Peter 1:3).
Freedom, however, is worthless unless it is exercised. That will be the topic of our next lesson, as we look at the parable of the sower.
Window on the World
From Randal Dick,
superintendent
of missions
It's time to rethink
mission
focus
Paul identified himself in his letter to the Romans as a servant of Christ. He did the same in his pastoral epistle to Titus, as did James and Peter and John in their epistles.
It is only from the perspective of a servant—better yet of a slave of Christ—that we can rightly understand our part in the mission work that Christ has given us.
Stewardship
The form of servanthood that we fulfill on behalf of Jesus Christ is best described as that of a steward. Stewardship involves discretionary authority to commit resources, along with a direct accountability to the Master for the use of those resources.
The steward is to use the resources committed to him or her to further the goals of the Master.
That is our starting point in mission. First Corinthians 6:20 says that we have been bought with a price.
I like to keep that in mind. If I have been bought, then I am owned, and any discretionary decisions I make should produce the results that the Owner seeks.
From the Owner’s perspective
The Owner is explicit about what he wants. In John 17 Jesus is talking to the Father. He rehearses the fact that he came to glorify the Father. Jesus says that the Father’s power was given to him so that “they might know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” (John 17:3).
Jesus continues in prayer, reminding the Father that he had prepared those whom he had received to carry on his work. He specifically noted that he was not just thinking about the initial 12, but also all those who would be called.
When placed together with passages such as Matthew 28:18-20, we get a clear picture of what our Owner wants to see come from our labor on his behalf. Simply put, the desired result is people, once under the penalty of death, now redeemed and alive in Christ.
Do it yourself?
Over the last several centuries the approach to mission could be summed up in the old saying, “If you want something done, you’ve got to do it yourself.” There was no one else. So Western Christians, who had been the recipient of the gospel handed down from the apostles, had to set aside their normal lives and devote themselves to bringing the gospel of Christ to those who had no way of receiving Christ without them.
Papua New Guinea
The quintessential example of this to me is a professor of mine, who in the 1960s went into the jungles of Papua New Guinea to a newly discovered tribe of active cannibals. He, his young wife and baby daughter moved into a village with the goal of bringing Christ to these primitive peoples.
Problem was, there was no Bible in the local language. To make matters worse, he didn’t know their language and had no one to teach him. To complicate matters even more, the people did not have a written language. He had to learn their language by osmosis, create an alphabet, teach them to read their own language and then translate the Bible into that manufactured language.
God worked mightily, and to this day there are strong Christian communities among those tribes (for a fascinating account of this undertaking you can read the book Kandila, by Daniel Shaw). Daniel’s experience was extreme, but it makes the point. We rightfully carried the gospel to the whole world by going. There was no other way.
Things have changed
In the last 15 to 20 years (it is difficult to pinpoint), God has produced a bountiful harvest. Now, across the Second and Third Worlds, millions of converted, devout and committed Christians are wholeheartedly bringing Christ to the nations.
In some cases these Christians are in a time of first love—and their enthusiasm and zeal is infectious.
New mission focus
It is hard to find a major people group on earth without an indigenous harvest force ready and able to carry the gospel to their people.
Here’s the point: In most cases, these people can do this job more effectively than us, and at a fraction of the cost that it takes for a Western missionary.
What they lack are resources. Our role as good stewards of Christ’s gifts to us should be focused on meeting their need for resources—not on doing their local mission work ourselves.
If Western Christians want to see the most Second and Third World people come to a meaningful relationship with Christ, then we must become providers of resources instead of “doing it ourselves.”
The most effective evangelism is done by local believers, not by short visits from outsiders.
Role of short-term mission trips
Does that mean that we should avoid Second and Third World short-term missions?
Not at all! Such trips are an excellent way to celebrate and take part in what God is doing in a given place.
The experience can be life-altering. I heartily recommend visiting and if possible participating in a such a mission effort. But let’s not make the mistake of thinking that participation in a short-term mission trip is the most effective stewardship of mission resources. It can be a blessing to those who do it and an encouragement to the local believers who are actually doing the mission work. But it should not be thought of as the primary way for us to “do our part” in international mission work.
How to best help
Keep in mind that the Owner wants results. The short-term mission experience should be a supplement to—a celebration of—the real work of mission, which is carried out by local believers.
The photos below try to make the same point visually.
P.S. In a future issue of the WCG News we hope to announce a short-term mission exposure opportunity that we expect to be tremendously edifying both for Westerners and the local believers. Stay tuned.
The Work of Mission
Bangladeshis need the Lord— badly! Here are 42 Bangladeshi brothers and sisters—Gospel Workers. They know their people well—their culture, language, hopes and fears.
Local mission work
In May alone, these 42 Gospel Workers conducted 442 Bible studies (in the Bengali language) and 277 small group worship meetings. They also identified the poorest of the poor in their area and gave them a goat to help release them from economic oppression. They trained women in basic health care to show the compassion of Christ. They have virtually no resources.
Short-term mission trip
Here is a devoted American Christian. She wants to have a meaningful role in kingdom work. She plans to go on a short-term mission to Bangladesh. The experience will be good for her. Some poor people will get new roofs to help protect them from the elements. Her congregation is excited, too—at last they can spend their mission money in a way that they can see—she’ll bring back stories and pictures.
Comparison
It costs this one Westerner about $3,350 to make this two-week mission exposure trip.
Consider this: If the Westerner had raised the same amount of money to help provide resources for the mission work of the local believers, it would have bought enough goats to permanently raise nearly 100 widows from poverty to sufficiency, trained about 40 nurses or supported a number of new full-time Gospel Workers.
Conclusion: We can be more effective stewards as providers of resources to those who can now more effectively do what Westerners previously had to do. There is a place for spending money on short-term mission trips (I like to call them “exposure opportunities”), but when it comes to Second and Third World mission work, our part is in resourcing the mission work of the local believers.
Note: As we were working on this edition, we learned that the worst monsoon rains and flooding in six years have covered 60 percent of Bangladesh, destroying crops and jobs. The nation will need food aid for 20 million people over the next five months. Starvation seems unlikely, however, because of international aid.
Update: News of people, places and events
Pastor Yong Chin Gee
retires from ministry in Malaysia
 Young Chin Gee and Yuet Siam |
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia—On June 13, more than 60 people from the Klang (Kuala Lumpur) congregation and visitors from other parts of Malaysia such as Kulai and Penang, and from Singapore as well, came together to worship God and celebrate the service given by longtime pastor Yong Chin Gee and his wife, Yuet Siam.
During the service, Mr. and Mrs. Yong were honored in their transition from full-time service to retirement. Both have experienced poor health at various times, and after a heart attack several years ago, Mr. Yong felt he needed to significantly reduce the pressure of responsibilities and to spend more time with his children.
The Yongs’ son, How Yin, lives in Singapore, and Mr. and Mrs. Yong plan to live with him as soon as they can sell their home in Kuala Lumpur.
At the service, Susan Low, the worship leader, created a framework of hymns and songs honoring Christian service. Rod Matthews, mission developer for Australia, the South Pacific and Asia, gave a sermon on the mighty work that God does in the lives of those who yield their lives to him.
After the service, tributes to the dedication, service and sacrifice of the Yongs were given by member, Deveraj Ramoo, and Wong Mein Kong, associate pastor.
Teresa Koay sang a song she adapted from the theme to Love Story. Mr. Matthews then read a poem honoring the life and wisdom of Yong Chin Gee written by Kerry Gubb, director of Flexible Learning and Assessment at Pacific Training & Development in the Australian Office, who has conducted intensive classes in Malaysia.
A presentation was made to the Yongs of a plaque and gifts on behalf of Pastor General Joseph Tkach and the regional office. The congregation then had lunch together at a restaurant.
Mr. and Mrs. Yong will volunteer their time as opportunity permits in service to the church in Singapore and in southern Malaysia at Kulai in Johor Bharu.
“The entire church in Malaysia and Singapore, as well as our people in Thailand, Indonesia, Hong Kong and Brunei, have benefited from their wisdom and dedication and been well served by their example of humility and service,” Mr. Matthews said. “We all honor them and wish them health and rejuvenation in their retirement.”
Suva, Fiji, congregation
marks 25th anniversary
 Epeli & Sofi Kanaimawi |
SUVA, Fiji—June 26 was the 25th anniversary of the Suva congregation, pastored by Ratu Epeli Kanaimawi.
Rex Morgan, pastor of the Auckland, New Zealand, congregation and office manager, flew to Fiji as a guest for the occasion as the New Zealand church has long provided administrative and pastoral support to Fiji.
Mr. Morgan sent the following report to Rod Matthews, mission developer, at the regional office in Australia:
“The Fiji church conducted a silver jubilee celebration in Suva, rejoicing in their memories of 25 years of the WCG in that nation.
“Seventy members attended the service, which included reflections from members William Qoro and Cegu Cati, several pieces of music, and my sermon, ‘Thanks for the Memories.’
“After the service came the cutting of the anniversary cake and the opportunity for members to enjoy refreshments and a walk down memory lane, viewing the extensive photo displays.
“At 4 p.m., the anniversary dinner program began. Mr. Qoro was master of ceremonies. The evening featured speeches from a number of members who presented their reminiscences over the past quarter of a century, a video of greetings and congratulations from the Auckland church and many more items of special music.
“On Monday, Epeli took me to the offices of the Assembly of Christian Churches in Fiji, of which he is the deputy chairman. In this role, Epeli has regular contact with a number of other denominational and governmental leaders and is able to be influential in a movement that is taking great strides in forwarding the cause of church unity and increasing the profile of the churches in Fiji. The government has declared 2004 as a National Year of Prayer, and July 6 was set aside as a national day of fasting and prayer.”
Congregations
to celebrate
40th anniversaries
DULUTH, Minnesota—The Duluth congregation will celebrate its 40th anniversary Oct. 10—40 years to the day that the church was established here.
We are looking for any former members of the congregation who would like to attend the festivities planned for the day. A catered meal will be served, and folks planning to attend should immediately call Pastor Gordy Lindquist toll-free at 1-800-353-3327 for details of the expenses involved and to comply with a Sept. 15 deadline we’ll need to meet.
We are also asking former members to send us their fondest memories and recollections of the Duluth church, which will be put in an album.
These may be either mailed to Pam Kleinschmidt, 429 N. 26th Ave. West, Duluth, Minnesota, 55806, or e-mailed to Joanne Christian at joattwig@uslink.net. Joanne Christian.
UNION, New Jersey—The Union congregation will celebrate its 40th anniversary Oct. 30, from 6 to 10 p.m., at The Gran Centurions, 440 Madison Hill Rd., Clark, New Jersey.
Festivities will include fellowship, a buffet dinner with unlimited soda and dancing. Current and former members and friends are invited to attend. If anyone has old photos of interest, they are encouraged to bring them.
The cost is $25 for adults, $18 for children 4 to 12, and children younger than 4 are free. Make checks payable to LCAF-Union and send them by Oct. 17 to Olga Jendrek, 134 Acorn Drive, Clark, New Jersey, 07066. For additional information you can call Olga at 1-732-388-0598. Olga Jendrek.
Copyright © Grace Communion International, 2004