robpetrini.com

Leadership Thoughts #1

I've been re-reading Seth Godin's book, "Tribes"...  

I found this comment from the book to be a real mind explosion!

We're stuck...

Stuck following archaic rules. Stuck in (churches) that not only avoid change but actively fight it. Stuck in fear of what our (congregation) will say, stuck because we're afraid we'll get into trouble.

Most of all, we're stuck acting like like managers or employees instead of like the leaders we could become. We're embracing a factory instead of a tribe.(Godin, pg.10).

Now, for all us church leaders... has church for you become a factory? A conveyor belt? A predictable, mechanical entity... devoid of dynamism or creativity?

Thoughts?

Missional... Overused or Abused

I think I am tired of hearing the word "missional" continually used as a catchphrase by the Christian intellect savvy swish club. In some circles it's almost used as a password to unlocking the coolness portal, much like breakdancing moves did for many of us in the 80s!   

So why do words surpass their actual meaning and take on a life of their own? I mean, I remember when "missional' was first being banded about. The curiosity of it was striking, especially at Bible college. It just sounded cool and it had that sense of mystique about it. But a friend of mine put it really simply, being missional meant being a friend. Simply, being a friend to the communtiy. So why does...

Be a Friend!

Not sound as cool as...

Be Missional!

Maybe because we really want to be part of the Christian intellect savvy swish club. Does being missional mean more than being a friend. A friend cares. Takes interest in the well being of their friend. Not only takes interest but acts and proacts to safeguard their friend. Brings meals in a time need. Offers a shoulder to cry on and arms for comfort. Provides a listening ear. And does not ask for anything in return...  

The problem is this though... if we are not friends in church, then what's the point of being friends in the wider community? The changes need to begin from within so that we can be better without. I'm not trying to minimize our need to be missional, but if we are squabbling with each other it effectively renders being missional obsolete. Which I guess is why so many emergent leaders are calling traditional church antiquated and ineffective. But if the church is a friend (both within and without), regardless of it's structure, does that make it ineffective or antiquated? 

 

Christian Male Egocentricity... Dispelling the Myths Pt. 2

The issue of women teaching men. For some reason a lot of egocentric men start fluttering if a woman were to preach in a church. I can't understand it. In our church I have found that we have a number of gifted women speakers who bless us immensely when they share! So why is it an issue and where does it come from? Is it as Biblical as some want to think? 

Why do I feel uncomfortable dealing with such a topic? I don't know, it doesn't at all question or put in jeopardy my salvation (or that of others). Yet when the topic is raised good friends become enemies! So why am I dealing with it? Because I feel there is need for me to. As a pastor I'm tired of people completely misinterpreting the Bible and not taking it as a whole.

Ok where to start... 1 Timothy 2:12:

"I do not let women teach men or have authority over..." (NLT)

I had a discussion with a friend of mine who says this is the crux of it. And at face value I agree. But can we take all that the Bible says at face value? I don't believe so. When Paul, a few verses later, writes in v.15:

"But women will be saved through child-bearing, and by continuing to live in faith, love, holiness, and modesty". (NLT)

Can we truly believe that women can be saved through child-bearing!? What do we do with those words that are so "black and white"? However we want to take it, one thing is for sure, most, if not all Biblical commentators (including myself) firmly believe that this verse is NOT saying women may be saved only if they experience child birth. Men and Women are saved by grace alone. V.15 requires a certain amount of interpretation. So what does v.15 say? I guess it's not all black and white!!! So what makes interpreting v.12 so different to interpreting v.15.

(By the way, it states that women WILL be saved through child-bearing. For those of you readying the arguement that women were saved through Mary, then it should read WERE saved... it is a future tense implying an event to occur within a women's life!) 

Unfortunately, when it comes to Biblical interpretation, we interprete things the way we want to see it (or understand it, especially in light of our cultural experiences) without either taking into account who wrote it, who it was written for, why it was written and what was God's intention in revelaing it. 

Just to make things a little more muddy, taking it a few verses back, in v.9, Paul says women should not wear jewelry. Do we take that seriously today? The response I've heard too many times is that v.9 is cultural and the command for women not teaching in v.12 is not. How do you know? Does that mean we don't have to dress modestly anymore (v.9 & 15). Can we truly dissect a paragraph and say that one verse is cultural while the next is not. One verse is black and white while the next needs interpretation. What exegetical (study) method is that? And who decides how to interprete what!!?? Either you are consistent or not, but don't make it up as you go.

Also it is important to note v.15 is a personal comment from Paul, he specifically says that HE does not permit women teaching, it is not God that does not permit!

Paul is writing a letter to Timothy who is heading off to the church located in Ephesus, where he was taking over as leader. Timothy was a young bloke and this seems to be his first pastorate. Ephesus was a well known city. One of the seven wonders of the ancient world was located there, the Temple of Artemis (or sometimes called Diana). Women were held in high regard and the temple sported male prostitutes for the female customers. Sort of the reverse to a patriarchal society! It was also known that the church in Ephesus struggled with several women who were power-playing. Bit of a rough environment for a young bloke to walk into. It is understandable why Paul is taking a cautious approach to the role of women in the church there, and why nowhere else does he make such an assertion. 

 

 

Christian Male Egocentricity... Dispelling the Myths Pt. 1

It's been a long time since I have felt the urge (or want) to blog, but thanks to a rather peculiar rant by Mark Driscoll, I find myself wanting to blog again! Thanks Mark! 

I don't want to hit out at Mark for his rant (which you can find HERE). Though he and I do share the same "foot in mouth" syndrome that makes us sometimes talk without thinking, Mark is, at heart, a good bloke who has some strong views. Some of which I share, many others of which I do not. 

I have tackled this subject before, but after Mark's outburst I have been flooded with questions about it. The Church has not been a kind place for women for a number of centuries. I say Church, in general, and not Christianity. There is a distinction. Just because a few of us are misled on the subject doesn't validate Christianity as being patriarchal in it's formation, and degrading to women in it's structure. What Christianity is, or should be, is quite different. Over the course of a few blogs I will try to dispell the myths that have surrounded the Church regarding the role of men and women. Myths that have not only caused more hurt and division than almost any other issue the church has encountered, but have also been at the root of much of the prejudice (and sometimes racist) approach church leaders (and members) have taken toward their community.  

I'll start with one myth... and I guess it is the biggest one since no one I know has actually challenged it. That's the myth that man was created first. Before you all start calling me a heretic (which may not be far from the truth), hear me out...

We get the name for Adam from the Hebrew word adamu (or adamatu), which means humanity (or as scholars of old put it, mankind). Adam wasn't a man, he was the incorporation of all humanity, both male and female. We've followed a traditional worldview of Genesis that states God created man which is only half right (a reason why newer Bible versions are now replacing "man" with "Human Beings". See NLT version of Genesis 1:26-27). We've lost the "kind" in "mankind".

The Lord saw that Humanity, in singular form, was lonely. So God sought a partner out. It's funny that over the centuries Christians have tried to find the missing rib in men to prove the story! It comes from just plain ignorance of Hebrew imagery! It's the positioning of the rib that is important, not the rib itself. That is, God chose something from the side (not from above, below, front or back). A partner is someone who walks alongside you. This was His intention for splitting humanity into male and female. The female element was taken out to walk alongside what remained, that is, the man element. Hebrew imagery would have been different if God intended man to lead woman. In other words, it would not have been a rib, but something from the back/behind position.  

It's important to understand this because our view of creation shapes our Christian worldview. If you can understand that God created man and woman equally, you'll will approach things in the bible quite differently.    

Next I'll hit on the touchy myth of women teaching men, that, for some reason, has a whole number of male egocentrics up in arms!!! 

 

August 30, 2011

If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.

1 John 1:9

Confession is a real important part of being a Christian. Without it how do we expect to get forgiveness?

God will forgive you. You can count on that! 

And once He has forgiven us we need to pick ourselves up and move on, making sure we remember that He is our god and we are His children. 

Love forgives. Love also confesses