Men, Women and Elders

This post has been rolling around in my head for weeks but I haven’t had the time or taken the time to put it into words. It seems that God has blessed me with some time as I severely wrecked my ankle playing basketball Sunday. So many shades of purple and so much swelling that I am trying to stay off of it as much as possible. Thankfully I don’t have to stand to type.

Why today does the discussion of men and women always center on who is the boss? How did that happen? I think I understand why and yet it would seem that the church should be better equipped to have this discussion. Maybe this is just wishful thinking.

Doesn’t Genesis 3:15 reveal that with the fall of humanity conflict between man and woman entered creation? Because of sin we will be at each others throats unless we allow the Spirit to lead? This conflict will exist until Christ returns. Isn’t this a good warning to heed? Shouldn’t we see this when the discussion centers on power?

What does Jesus say about being in charge?

“Jesus called them together and said, ‘You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.’” Matthew 20:25-28

I don’t understand why we wrestle for authority when Jesus seems pretty clear that in His Kingdom leadership means you die first.

Much today has been made about equality and I agree that all are equal, but why has equality taken on the definition of the same meaning no roles?

Let me just ask a question that may show my confusion. I think we would agree that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are equal. They are all God therefore the same, and yet does that really mean that there are not distinct roles in the Godhead?

Imagine if I told you than that the Spirit could have died on the cross for you or the Father could have taken those nails. What if I told you that Jesus could have promised that the Father would come and live in you or He would come instead of saying the Spirit would be sent to those who believe? What would you think of my theology? They are equal and one and yet they have distinct roles that only one could carry out.

Should we have a problem with that? Should we argue that equality means any one could have been born of a virgin? Why do we not hear the implications of our arguments?

Why is it no longer okay to say we are equal and the same and yet we have different roles that only one can carry out? I think that the big problem is this conversation has centered on power. It is my firm belief that it should be centered not on power but protection.

Men are not better at making decisions, teaching or anything else. They are not better with power. We were made to protect and defend. That is the role that we have received and seemed pretty obvious for centuries until we became so advanced that we didn’t think we needed protection.

The entire Bible’s discussion about men and women is centered on protection and defense. What is Paul really teaching in Ephesians 5:22-33? Is he teaching about the boss, who has the power, or is he teaching on who has the responsibility to defend and protect?

The text says that man is the source of the protection. Paul links man to Jesus and says that as Christ died for the church so should a man die for his wife. The context of the discussion is protection. No where in the text does Paul say that a woman should die for her husband as Christ died for the church.

Help me understand why this is bad and sinister and wrong? The idea of submission is in the context of protection. Allow your husband to defend you and your family.

This concept expands to the church in general. Why are men called to be elders? Is it because they are smarter or better at making decisions or because we are called to defend? Is it because God intended is to have the power? No, we are called to defend the church, protect the body from Satan and the world.

What makes me sad is the fact that the church is supposed to be a defensive group of people. We are called to protect the widow and the orphan, those who are defenseless. Men have been called but we ignore the warnings from Genesis at the strife that comes with sin and instead of taking up the challenge to defend we fight about who is the boss.

May men take their true role seriously and may both realize it has nothing to do with power.

Replacing of Place with Person


In the gospels Jesus on approaching Jerusalem shares with his followers the common destruction of the Temple. John shows us that like so much of the Bible there is a dual meaning to this statement. In John 2:21, 22 we find that his disciples realized after the resurrection that he was referring to his body.

The Temple was and is a special place. We find Jesus legitimately angry at the Temple when he clears the temple of the cheats and hustlers who prey on pilgrims. Why? Because the Temple was the representation of God for the God’s chosen people. It was suppose to be a place where people could draw near to God. It was suppose to be a place that testified to the covenant relationship that God desired with His people.

I have been reading a text book by Oskar Skarsaune entitled In the Shadow of the Temple this past week and he pointed the way to Stephen in Acts 6 and 7. What brought those in the synagogue of the Freedmen to a point where they could take no more of Stephen? What pushed them over the edge to bring charges against Stephen? In Acts 6:13 they say it is because, “This man never ceases to speak words against the holy place and the law.” Stephen was talking bad about the Temple and that bothered them.

When Stephen quotes Isaiah 66:1, 2 and says that God needs no house to rest in they became enraged and took him outside the city and stoned him. He attacked the necessity of the Temple. Why? Because the Messiah had come. Jesus the trueTemple had arrived, we need no more place holder, no representation because the real thing arrived, lived, died and rose on the third day.

Paul takes this one step further and shares that because the Spirit now lives in us we are the Temple. We are a holy place where God comes near. We are His testimony. We seek to live as a witness of God, our actions testify to His nature. What a wonderful and beautiful story which is why my heart breaks for the fellowship of my youth.

They spend all of their time arguing about place. They spend their time debating what can and can’t happen in a place, never seeming to grasp that it was forever moved from a place to a person.

Recently I stumbled upon the church website of the church we worshiped at while living in Iowa. I listened to the people they were looking at hiring to be their minister and all of their sermons were so familiar. All were focused on place. Not only where all the people applying talking about place, their Sunday morning substitute was talking about place.

It makes me sad because I worshiped with many of those people. Their eldership has changed since our time their and so has the direction. How sad to miss such a basic truth, it isn’t about place it is Person. All of those rituals were a shadow. They represented Jesus and yet they create forms that are a shadow of nothing, place holders that have nothing to do with anything.

I rejoice that today we have the person and I pray that the place always remembers this. Would you be willing to be stoned defending Person over place?

The Theology of Marriage

I hate performing weddings. People stop by out of the blue and want me to marry them. When I tell them I have some things they have to go through before I will marry them they act as if I have asked for their firstborn. Why do people approach a minister like they approach McDonald's for a wedding? I keep waiting for someone to request super size. "Do you have that wedding on the dollar menu?" I have seen couples who would give more time for a drivers test than premarital instruction.

Why has marriage been cheapened so much in our world today? Is it just the nature of the battle? The image of wedding runs throughout scripture. We find the first man and woman in the very first wedding in the Garden. We see the church, the bride of Christ, celebrating and feasting in the coming Kingdom on our wedding day.

I have been reading a book entitled Let’s Start with Jesus by Dennis F. Kinlaw and he has reminded me about the beauty of this metaphor. What do you do to help those around you appreciate the power of marriage in the divine image?

I don’t think I have done very well. Any thoughts?

Enablers

Have you ever watched the show Intervention on A&E? It chronicles a series of interventions in people’s lives that are addicted to drugs or alcohol. It is very compelling television as you learn about the person with the addiction and then watch as family and friends step in hoping they will go into treatment.

The success rate is a mixed bag from success to those who don’t even finish rehab. I watch the show and one thing that has struck me is how many people enable their son or daughter, spouse or friend. A lot of people who love them enable them to continue the cycle of destruction. I wonder if we in the church do not play the part of the enabler to often. As I thought about this I also thought about one of my favorite parables. Let’s rewrite the parable, let me know what you think.

“Dad can I have my inheritance. I really want the money now so that I can enjoy the city life. I don’t want to wait until you die. The dad decides to divide what he has between the two sons. A few days later and the son is off to the city to find work and have a good time.

Not long after the father gets word back that his son has been partying a lot and spending all of the money. The dad is shocked and concerned. He loves his son and is worried about what this behavior might bring. He decides to travel to the city to beg for his sons return before he does something he might really regret.

The father finds his son on the street with a bottle of malt liquor. He begs his son to come home because he can’t stand to see him in this state. Dad grabs the bottle of malt liquor to entice the son into his car. Dad takes him to get something to eat and they talk about what it will take to insure his sons return.

The son informs the father that he doesn’t like his older brother. He is just too uncaring and insensitive. The house has too many rules that seem outdated. He begins to vent his frustration about his work load and the expectations. Dad can’t stand this because he really wants his son home, so he promises that he will cut back the work load and talk with the older brother…”

Now that is not how the story we refer to as the prodigal son goes is it? I have been thinking about this parable lately and the way we treat lost sheep. Do we go to them and ask what it will take to get their return? Is that wise? Are we only acting the part of spiritual enabler? When we go out and ask the lost what they need to be found are we really helping?

I don’t know. This is just something that I have been pondering, what do you think?

Truth and True

This is something that has fascinated me for many years and I wish I understood why people can not separate what is true from what is truth. If someone could explain why this is so hard I would greatly appreciate it.

What do I mean exactly? Our children have a bedtime and a bedtime routine. We start sending our kids to bed at 8:00 knowing that with teeth brushing, bed time dressing, a story from the Bible, and some conversation we will usually have them settled in at around 8:30. Okay, if you have children I assume you have your own bedtime and bedtime routine.

It is true that our kids’ bedtime is 8:30 but is it truth? Is it absolute? Should I expect every child around the world to go to bed at the same time because it is true that at the Hamm house we go to bed at 8:30? Should I teach the church to synchronize their watches so that everyone is tucked in at the same time?

I really don’t understand. How can people not grasp that just because that is true doesn’t make it universal truth? Universal truths are things like gravity and grace, love and forgiveness. They are things that are the same no matter where you are and what you do. They are truths that play out no matter what the bedtime.

Our world suffers the consequences every day when we go against these universal truths but it would seem that the churches inability to differentiate has left us unable to give guidance to a lost and dieing world.

I believe in universal truth but so many don’t today and I believe it is because we have not separated truth from what was true. We have divided over what we found to be true instead of defending truth. We have done such a poor job of differentiating between the two that many lost souls no longer believe truth exists. What a sad indictment of the modern church.

What can we do to teach this? What can we do to show this? Is there any hope that we can show the world that just because some believers claimed something that was true as truth doesn’t mean that truth doesn’t exist? Help me out because I really want to know.

Lines

We all have lines. A place we won’t go. An imaginary point in the sand we are unwilling to cross. How do we develop such lines? What leads us to draw them and what could happen that would lead us across?

The church has always had lines. The early fathers and the Bible talk about heresy. They warn about those who deny the divinity of Christ and they call out those who claim you can do whatever you want, the soul and body are separate. We all have to admit that lines exist, the problem has always been how we mark them.

Most of us draw lines based on our own experiences. We base what we deem to be proper on what we feel is proper. I hope that in reading that we can see the problem. The dividing line is no longer Christ but instead swings to my personal preferences. In this scenario I become god.

Now we humans are good at realizing this deep within and so we typically find some scripture or verse that we hope will cover our selfishness. Several years ago I was working at a church that was thinking of taking out their pews to add chairs. The facility was small and it would have been nice to use the sanctuary space for more than that one hour a week for worship. Our fellowship hall was very small and class rooms were at a premium.

When we began to discuss the idea one older gentleman who didn’t want to lose the pews brought up 1 Corinthians 11:22. He said we couldn’t eat in the sanctuary. Was that really why? Actually he used the pew in front of him for leverage to help him get up. We needed to know that because we should be thinking of others, but did bringing Paul into it help? Suddenly a matter of opinion was backed by the very word of God. Is that healthy?

Several years later this man went to a church where they had chairs and discovered they were not only more comfortable but the interlocking nature allowed him plenty of leverage to get out of his seat. Suddenly God wasn’t so vocal about chairs.

I don’t share this to be mean, I love and respect him and appreciate this man, but what happened is an example of the danger of this thinking. When we start saying God said so the lines get drawn and they solidify very quickly. One mans concern about getting out of his chair becomes a God who hates to have people eat in the sanctuary. That is not good.

In the end I think the church would look a lot different today if we actually followed what Paul said instead of turning his words into a defense for personal preferences. In the end it would be good to understand that every house church wasn’t the same, that the early church didn’t even gather on the same day let alone in the same way. If we understood that Paul was working to keep such different groups united maybe we would be willing to put more effort into true unity. Instead many use these words in an attempt to force their way on others. How far could we be from what Paul intended?

First Impressions

Have you ever really tried to impress someone? I remember trying very hard to create these ultra romantic experiences when I was single. I wanted to create that “You had me at hello” moment, that event that would set fireworks off in the background Love American Style. In the end none of those relationships really worked out. Some of the young ladies got scared, this guy wants to be way too serious, while others enjoyed the experience but discovered that we really weren’t compatible.

Romance is great and all but doesn’t it create false expectations? What is really romantic about the dishes, the laundry or keeping the yard mowed? Yet each is essential to a relationship and will ultimately affect the closeness of the relationship.

My wife and I met and were friends for over a year. I remember the first time we met. We played volleyball together and I remember not being attracted at all. I remember our first kiss while she helped me pack for a move. There was nothing romantic about these experiences, nothing out of the ordinary, and yet we approach our twelve year anniversary.

Certainly our relationship has romantic moments, but overall our relationship works because of the day to day. It works because we work on it. We are close at times and far apart in others and yet we constantly work because we are committed to the relationship.

I bring this up because I wonder if we have romanticized our relationship with God. I worry that we only feel close if we have had some ultra romantic experience. A worship service is only good if I felt some powerful movement of God.

I think some of this comes from how we look at the Bible. Do we see the miraculous movement of God recorded in the text and long for the same romantic experience? That really is how we see them isn’t it? Some big out of the ordinary moment where God takes his followers breathe away?

Is that really true though? When Joseph interprets dreams given by God this was not some new breath taking way that a deity communicated with creation. Dreams were the standard way that both God and Satan spoke at that time. No one who received a dream was surprised. The issue wasn’t about a startling communication, but instead on finding someone who could interpret the message received.

Much is made about speaking in tongues today and yet John warns that each spirit should be tested. Speaking in tongues was not confined to believers and was not uncommon. I don’t say this to deny speaking in tongues or any other act of God. I just wonder if our obsession with the breathe taking doesn’t set us up for false relational expectations.

Are there moments when God moves in miraculous ways? Certainly, I only caution that they may not be as common as one might think. Does this mean we should never expect the miraculous? Of course not, I still purchase my wife flowers and I will never forget our trip to Cancun. My point is real and authentic relationships are not built on the uncommon but the common. The girls I wowed with romance are married with 2.2 kids and a dog, someone else’s 2.2 kids and dog. Relationships do not grow because of romantic moments, they grow and are sustained because we work on the relationship with a humble heart.

If you know me well you know I have had these powerful moments, but they are not what I base my relationship on. What do you think? Is the church guilty of romanticizing our relationship with God? If so how does this harm the church? If it is true what should we do about it?

You Lose

I hate those words. They bother me. I don’t like to lose and we live in a society that hates losing but how do we measure defeat? What criteria do we go by when attempting to decide who won and who lost?

I have been watching the news these past few days and I have begun to wonder if what some call defeat will actually mean victory. They see their party going down because of certain actions and they are in full damage control. They sound like they are scared of defeat. When people start talking about losing no one wants to lose. People begin to do whatever it takes to preserve a win, but what if how they are measuring victory is wrong? What if God is in control of all of this getting done what He needs to get done?

Several years ago my brother found himself in the very unglamorous position of helping a group of believers sell off all of their assets. The church had dwindled in attendance to the point where they could no longer keep their doors open. They sold the building and then divided the proceeds several different ways. One part went to a church plant in another suburb and the rest went to mission work at various churches.

Those who had been with the church for many years saw the sell of their building as a defeat. They were down and depressed as their facilities sold but was it really a loss? Did the church really face defeat? The original group of believers no longer uses the facility but another church does. This church is a Chinese church. These are people this group would have never reached with the good news of Jesus Christ. Other believers were added to various other fellowships in the area and a growing church plant came from this group’s demise.

Was it really a defeat? If you look at the big picture I would say it was a victory. One group who had lost their energy to grow and carry on gave way to another that did. One group who had seen the journey through watched as a new one took things in a different direction.

I was reminded of Habakkuk when he bemoans what he sees as defeat. It is God who chimes in to proclaim that he is doing something that will astound, a work that we humans would find unbelievable. Habakkuk sees defeat when God knows there is victory.

Maybe we spend too much time trying to call winners and losers instead of being reminded that God always win and Jesus has the final victory. Maybe if we worried less about score we wouldn’t see defeat when there is victory.

Moments that Shape:
Oaks of Righteousness

How does your local McDonald’s look these days? Anything like the one you grew up eating at? Ours has very little resemblance. I mean the bathrooms are still in the same spot in the back on the right hand side of the store but that is about the only thing that reminds me of the restaurant I grew up eating happy meals at. I took my son to ours for a snack the other day and I had a moment that shapes.

The new McDonald’s have even less in common. What am I to do? Should I opine the days of the yellow and red hard plastic chairs? Do I dream of the time when the beverage counter was safely stashed behind the check out counter when a free refill wasn’t even a glimmer in Ronald’s eye?

I was in Panera Bread a few weeks later and I was reminded of how much interior matters. It sends a message. It tells people something about you. It can either welcome people or it can say go away. It can tell people you are a warm and friendly or that you are stale and lifeless.

What about your place of worship? What does it say? I have been thinking about this for the past few weeks as we continue to work on the interior and exterior of our facility. What message do you send people who are invited to your space? I realize that much has been made about going, and I agree, but at some point we as humans will share a space.

Maybe your space is unconventional. Okay, that is good because you are saying something in your space about who you are. I just worry that sometimes people think they can say something about themselves without their space agreeing that it is true. Would Panera Bread still be the same if the space was different? What if the walls were white and the lights were fluorescent and the cups styrofoam? Would the exact same food still seem as good? Would the place be as inviting?

If we are oaks of righteousness, a planting of the Lord, shouldn’t we be appealing? My wife and I stopped at a place called Life Church this morning. It is a long story but we happened to be down the street and my wife had never been inside. What does Life Church tell you when you enter their doors? Something is happening in here, kids are welcome and this is a cool place with cool things going on. I’m not saying every church should copy Life Church, far from it, jus that their space sends a clear message about what they value and who they are.

If our space says old and outdated why should we think someone would enter thinking differently? If our space says same old same old why would we believe people will think this is a fresh way of experiencing faith? I am just not sure they will. How does your website look? What does it say? In each of these places you tell people about yourself and what you value. What message do you send?

One last thought about my trip to McDonald’s. As I sat their with my son eating fries and talking life I was also reminded by my son that we can do things that make us more attractive that serve no practical purpose and may actually hinder our ultimate goal.

I was looking up at the television at the McDonald’s because it is big and loud and hard to ignore when my son asked me why they had a TV. He didn’t think it was necessary. He didn’t understand why I needed a TV to eat dinner.

I realized after he said this that the TV was actually keeping me from focusing on this special time that my son and I were sharing. The space was keeping me from building a meaningful relationship with my son. We can create an environment that is more appealing and cool and yet forget that we are trying to help foster a relationship with our Creator.