I don’t make it my practice to use sites that I link to as [Re]Con, but this post from Stephen Altrogge at The Blazing Center is well-worth your time to read. As disciples of Christ, we have an obligation to submit to our Master and humbly ask Him to teach us how we should find contentment in our circumstances.

For more great material on contentment, please check out this sermon entitled “The Quest for Contentment” preached by Dave Harvey at Providence Church in Pittsburgh.

Tony Woodlief published a phenomenal article in the Wall Street Journal entitled Ya Gotta Have (Real) Friends. It is well-worth your time to read it.

In the course of our discipleship, it’s important to remember that one of the greatest assets available to Christians as they pursue maturity in their faith is close friendships. They provide accountability, challenge, encouragement, knowledge of Scripture, prayer partners and so much more. So, pray to God and pursue a deep, lasting friendship with someone. We need it.

Our exploration of seeking discernment so far has had very little to do with what we are discerning and, yet, apart from them we will be unable to discern anything. Until we shut up and bow down, there will be no discernment. God  is not honored by vain words or complaint or anxiety. Neither does he acknowledge our pride and arrogance. So, to hear God speak means we ought to pursue silence and humility before the Lord.

The first thing to realize, though, is that God does speak today, presently and powerfully. Let us be cautious here. I am not claiming that you will hear an audible voice from God when you are seeking to discern His will. You might. I wouldn’t expect it, but God is completely free to do as He pleases. However, God communicates to us in a diverse selection of ways: circumstances, what other people say to us, the reading of the Word, prayer, impressions, prophecy, counsel, etc. It’s important to note, however, that as great as these are, ALL of them fall under the grace-driven authority of the Word of God.

The second thing to realize is that God speaks purposely. In Isaiah 55:11 (ESV), God tells us ” so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.” The most immediate application of this text is to the Scripture, so we know that the Scripture is effective in what God has given it to say. It is not beyond reason, however, to say that this Scripture is true of God’s other means of communicating to us. God’s speaking is effective and has purpose for your life. So pay attention.

The third thing to realize is that God speaks personally. There are things that God is going to speak to you that are going to radically transform how you live. It may not be the same thing that He has communicated to others in your life. This is an important thing to get down in our lives because if we put burdens and yokes on men because of what God has put it in our hearts to do, we are burdening servants who are not ours. They are God’s servants and their Master will assign to them their tasks. Clearly, this does not apply strictly to Scripture. Scripture’s authority is universal and absolute and we have no exception for it in any respect.

So, God speaks. Hear. Receive. Submit.

I have had the blessing and privilege of my soul being cared for, challenged, and encouraged by the ministry of Mike Pierson. At Providence Church, I have grown tremendously due to his ministry and that of Pastor Jeremy Hetrick. Recently, C.J. Mahaney, leader of Sovereign Grace Ministries, interviewed Mike in his “ordinary pastors” series. Mike talks a lot about his practice of the spiritual disciplines and God’s goodness to him and I think it provides us a great deal of insight into how we can pursue discipleship with our Master. The series is called Meet Mike Pierson and it can be found in Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.

Mark Driscoll wrote a tremendous response to a question from FOX News about Newsweek’s recent report about the death of Christendom in America. It is important to realize that the Gospel does not belong to America, nor does the flag mirror the cross, but we are exiles in the world called to seek the welfare of the city where we have been placed, holding our citizenship in the Kingdom of Messiah.

Has Christian America Come to an End? – FOX Fan – FOXNews.com

Posted using ShareThis

Before we could begin to exercise discernment and hear the voice of God, we must humble ourselves. Getting ourselves to stop talking is only a beginning that gives us room to place our hearts in a position of humility.  We cannot expect to have the help of God in any other area of our life until we first allow Him to humble us. The essence of humility ism as C.J. Mahaney states in Humility: True Greatness, “honestly assessing ourselves in light of God’s holiness and our sinfulness.” He is perfect. We are imperfect. He is great. We are small. He is Creator. We are created. He is righteous. We are rebellious. He is merciful. We are unforgiving. He is just. We are corrupt. And so on it goes. When we see ourselves in comparison to this God and recognize the depth and unsurpassing worth of His grace, we will begin to see the fruit of humility in our lives.

This is essential. Without humility, we’ll never gain discernment. Scripture is replete with the connection between knowledge of holiness and understanding. Unless we pursue knowledge of the Holy One and see who we are in comparison to Him and recognize our place and our need for His grace, we will never have discernment. So, humble yourself. Spend time in the Word, in prayer, and considering the greatness of God. Surround yourself with those things and those people who remind you sharply of the holiness of God and your own inability to hold to that standard. Seek His face, receive His grace and then we will have been positioned to hear God’s direction.

There is a great deal of discussion and debate on the topic and nature of discernment. Pastors and theologians are teaching about it through sermons, seminars, and books. Conferences are held centering on it. Even bloggers have stepped onto the scene with Tim Challies‘ book The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment (very highly recommended). The fact is, discernment is all the rage, and rightly so. It’s an important issue and merits the attention of Christians everywhere. As Challies wisely names it, discernment is also a discipline that ought to be cultivated by Christians for use in their everyday lives.

To work with discernment, we require a working definition. Discernment can be understood as the confident choice of an individual to embrace the leading and will of God. This is reflected in both developing the discipline of discernment and in the reception of the spiritual gift of discernment. If we are not confident, we have no exercised the scrutiny that comes from discerning. If we have not chosen, we have simply been subjected by or submitted ourselves to the circumstances that we are in. If it is not the leading of God, it is our own self-deceiving heart. If it is not the will of God, it is faithlessness and rebellion. So each of these elements is necessary for our understanding of discernment.

Many more qualified, more experienced, and much wiser men than I have written on discernment. So I will not labor in the teaching of Word on discernment. Rather, seek out the wisdom of men iike Tim Challies, Kevin DeYoung, Josh Harris, C.J. Mahaney, John Piper, J.I. Packer, and others to hone and form your knowledge and insight into the discipline and gift of discernment. What I hope to do, however, is to present some practical elements to the discipline of discernment that are, perhaps, less profound than other readings but the beauty of their simplicity allows us effective communion and submission to God. The first of these points is that the discerning believer will stop talking.

We’re good at encouraging each other to converse with God and not let prayer be a one-way conversation. What usually happens when we try to follow that advice, however, is that we spend a lot of time talking to ourselves about our problems, our perceptions, and our own personal revelations, which we may ascribe to God. The most important thing we can do, to start with, is to stop talking.

To stop talking does not mean taking a vow of silence. Rather, we must be sure that we do not bury ourselves with our wn inter-personal dialogues. In his book Humility: True Greatness, C.J. Mahaney admonishes readers to preach to themselves, to remind ourselves of grace, of lowliness, of humility, and the greatness of God in the Gospel. So when we seek discernment, we start by calling on our souls to still thsemelves and be reverent in the presence of the Almighty Creator.

In doing this, it is often helpful to meditate upon a single verse or brief passage of Scripture. By focusing our attention upon that one verse/passage, we fill our minds with the Word of God and attune our ears to the sound of His voice. With focus and patience, we silence the agonies of our souls and give them brief respite from self-criticism, self-argument, and self-advancement. When we do this, we find ourselves humbled, desiring to see more of God’s greatness and filled with inexpressible joy. So, then, let us be silent before the Lord and quiet our souls to hear His instruction.

This is the final post in the series. I hope that it has proved helpful and I would definitely appreciate feedback on any points here. Thank you and God bless you all! Soli Deo Gloria.

Vision-Casting: What Each View Envisions in the Church

While the casual observer might, justifiably, expect that the vision of each view for the Church is that their own particular perspective would dominate and become part of its orthodoxy, it would be irresponsible for any student of the controversy to presume that such is the ultimate goal. In fact, for each side there is a tangible, effectual end besides the acceptance and consensus in their favor. These are determinative for the possibility and process of redemptive response to the controversy as we begin to develop it.

In a review of Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy, edited by R. Pierce, R. Groothuis, and G. Fee – an egalitarian anthology of articles covering the scope and depth of issues at stake in the controversy – Ruth Gouldbourne, herself an egalitarian, states that,

I have wondered if it is possible to be evangelical and egalitarian. I believe it is. But if our definition of what evangelical means is something pre-decided then perhaps our evangelical identity needs closer examination. By taking the biblical material so seriously, and dealing with it so carefully, the writers have challenged the notion that simply to attach the label evangelical to a position means that by definition it is Scripturally accurate. (Gouldbourne, 2006, 82-83)

In short, Gouldbourne, prompted by what she felt was an excellent publication and exploration of the exegetical arguments for egalitarianism, is looking for the reevaluation of evangelicalism itself. Egalitarianism is not merely a call for adjustment in practice or a cry for justice for churched women, then, but envisions itself as a catalyst for the entire evangelical world to reconsider its orthodoxy and identity in light of the Scriptures. For them, it’s about redefining a dying evangelicalism.

Interestingly enough, an egalitarian review of W. Grudem’s Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth: an analysis of 118 disputed questions informs us of the complementarian vision:

Grudem sees the issue of male and female roles as a key one for today’s church.  Failure to understand this issue as Grudem does and act accordingly, will result in a drift to heresy and ultimately a society that is characterized by no gender differences. In his concluding chapters Grudem identifies denominations that have already embarked on this road by ordaining women as ministers and elders. It is of crucial importance to study the scriptures and live according to the guidance. (Fulton, 2006, 71)

What Fulton states, then, is the complementarian vision is a church that is safeguarded from heresy and false teaching, devoted to Biblical orthodoxy, and seeking to live faithfully to the Gospel they’ve received. So, like egalitarianism, complementarianism seeks to call the evangelical church to consider and be introspective. Unlike egalitarianism, however, the complementarian view is crying for an evaluation of where evangelicals stand in relation to Christ and the saving truth of the Scriptures. At the end of the day, for complementarians, it’s not about men and women, but about the Gospel.

Here, then, we have a subtle contrast. Complementarians envision a change of people in submission to the Scriptures that they may more accurately live out, teach, and spread the Gospel. The question is not fundamentally about the trappings and practices of orthodoxy, but about how it will lead to the compromise of orthodoxy. Egalitarians, on the other hand, envision a change of the trappings and practices of the orthodox, but itself having no goal or effect for the Gospel. Here, then, we begin to observe why each view fails to truly engage the other: they are aiming at two different realms – one visible, one invisible.

Answering the Question: Is It a Worthwhile Debate?

We have seen that while both define themselves as a defense of orthodoxy against their opposition. However, the way they define that opposition is at two different levels. Where complementarians see the opposition as a set of beliefs, egalitarians see their opposition as a group of people who happen to hold a certain set of beliefs. This, in turn, impacts their respective visions for the local church as egalitarians are intent on defining the beliefs of evangelicals and complementarians set on calling people back to a universal submission to doctrine. With such difference in goals and perceptions, one might question whether this conflict should continue to be engaged by Christians at all levels – congregations, pastors, theologians, and scholars. Two participants in this conversation, Wade Burleson and Kevin Higham, have presented their theses in this discussion to bring reconciliation to these groups.

As a pastor in the Southern Baptist Convention, Wade Burleson has set himself on a mission to promote and practice justice regarding gender roles in the local churches, particularly those of Southern Baptist convictions. In a remarkable interview that effectively removes him in much of the controversy, Burleson steps aside from the issue of pastoral leadership and focuses on the issue of justice in those areas where there is, for him, clearly no call for distinction of service to the church in gender: seminary professorships, administrators of ministries, missionaries, and church staffers (Burleson, 2008).

Key to Burleson’s thesis are two fundamental claims: (1) regardless of whether one is egalitarian or complementarian, it is owed to women that churches have not always done justice in treating them in a manner worthy of Christ; (2) in both views, there is a broad need for humility and self-examination necessary if we are to move forward. Only when we have these, says Burleson, can we continue the discussion of women’s roles in the local church, and other arenas (Burleson, 2008, 12).

Interestingly enough, Kevin Higham’s thesis parallels these demands, but takes them one step forward in application. Working from within a complementary framework, Higham gives a call for evangelicals to accept that women have leadership giftings and those do not, by necessity, demand a role of authority such as that of pastor/elder. He outlines the steps as follows:

First, we need to accept it [women’s leadership gifting] and not be afraid of it. [...] Whether that gift of leadership is used within the church or within secular society,  the church leadership should help develop and grow the gift. [...] Secondly we should not ignore it. Ignoring it will only lead to discouraged women. [...] Thirdly we liberate them by treating them as equals with dignity and love, also ensuring that a woman is “planted” within the house of God. [...] Finally, we need to release them from fear of overstepping the mark and work with them on their leadership gifting within the defined limits of the environment it is to be engaged within. [...] It is the leader’s responsibility to help release women from fear and into the security found in Christ. (Higham, 2003, 91).

In other words, say Burleson and Higham, we must engage this conversation. For the sake of the Church, both men and women, there must be resolution – an end of conflict and a deliverance from distortion of Scripture and oppression of believers on any extreme. And, so, for both egalitarians and complementarians, we find the utter need to move forward and seek reconciliation in the midst of this controversy.

Application and Conclusion: Moving Beyond Expressions and Divisions

There is no doubt as to the nature and intensity of this controversy. While much of the popular literature has only been briefly alluded to in this examination, it is telling that even in the midst of scholarly or educated literature from egalitarians and complementarians there exists a tension and, in some cases, hostility. If even among those who are sophisticated and seeking to instruct, rather than inflame, there can be such conflict, how much more so for those who are involved purely out of their feelings or loyalties to their own traditions!

We are left then with the question of where this conversation must go. There is a broad range of responses that could be given. Things could continue as they are, and hurt will expand on either side. We could part ways, creating an even more starkly divided evangelicalism. Neither of these is remarkably appealing and would, I think, dishonor the call of Jesus and his redemptive work on behalf of us as the people of God. Rather than the status quo, we ought to distance ourselves from division and seek reconciliation.

How can this be done? Moving in a similar trajectory as Higham, my argument would be that the local churches should adopt a complementarian framework with an egalitarian attitude. To clarify, our reconciliation can be found in the recognition of gender equality and difference. Men and women, being equal in person, in standing before God, and in giftedness, bear roles in submission to Christ that are equal, primarily shared with some separation for each gender to lead according to their gifting and calling. Thus, it is primarily for men to serve as elders – the oversight of the local church – as it is primarily for women to serve as leaders in character.

Now, lest there be any confusion, neither position is essentially inferior to the other. Elders, according to the pastoral epistles of Paul, are given to serve all believers, in a position that is lower than any other in the course of this world’s workings. Leaders of character, too, are servants and models for life in Christ. Where elders present the whole counsel of God, leaders present the whole character of God – and these are far from being strictly segregated (since the primary qualifications of eldership deal with character and the primary test of character is sound doctrine). Thus, we have a complementarian framework. Where we begin to have an egalitarian attitude is in recognizing, affirming, and developing leadership in women, as well as men. Neither gender has an inferior ministry or an inferior calling, but both are gloriously contributing to the glory of God and the building up of the Church.

Concluding then, I would remind us all of the words of the apostle Paul in his epistle to the Ephesians:

I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift. [...] And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. (Eph. 5:1-7, 11-13 English Standard Version)

A recent Barna release revealed that the majority of American Christians don’t believe in either Satan OR the Holy Spirit. This betrays the necessity and dire need for discipleship and sound doctrine in our churches. As the study suggests, “Americans who consider themselves to be Christian have a diverse set of beliefs – but many of those beliefs are contradictory or, at least, inconsistent.” George Barna’s conclusion is, I think well-founded:

Most Americans, even those who say they are Christian, have doubts about the intrusion of the supernatural into the natural world. Hollywood has made evil accessible and tame, making Satan and demons less worrisome than the Bible suggests they really are. It’s hard for achievement-driven, self-reliant, independent people to believe that their lives can be impacted by unseen forces. At the same time, through sheer force of repetition, many Americans intellectually accept some ideas – such as the fact that you either side with God or Satan, there’s no in-between – that do not get translated into practice.

What are some practical steps that we as individuals and churches can take to stem this tide of unorthodox belief among those who claim to be orthodox Christians in this country?

Self-Expressions: How Each View Defines Itself

Although we have defined, for our purposes, the meanings of egalitarianism, complementarianism, and gender and while this is a crucial step as we begin to seek reconciliation in the area of gender roles in the local church, we cannot begin the work of reconciliation until we have addressed each view’s self-understanding and self-perception. More important, perhaps, than an outsider’s view of any group is their own understanding of who they are and what they are about.

In the scope of egalitarian literature, very few pieces seem to be concerned with defining who they are. Fundamentally, it seems, they are concerned with responding to their opponents: complementarians. Now, this is perhaps a significant observation in itself, but let us not neglect what answers that egalitarians have offered for themselves. Kevin Giles, an Anglican vicar in Australia, says by way of describing egalitarianism in a scenario that,

Egalitarians consistently argue that the Bible treats the issues of slavery and the subordination of women in much the same way. The writers of the Bible – as men living in cultures that accepted the institution of slavery and subordination of women as unquestioned facts of life – depict both social realities as if they are agreeable to God. Neither are ever condemned or specifically questioned in Scripture. Given another cultural context, egalitarian evangelicals argue, slavery and the subordination of women are to be repudiated because, at a primary, theological level, the Bible depicts every human as being of equal worth and dignity, never prescribing some social roles to men and others to women. (Giles, 2002, 7)

In other words, egalitarians believe themselves to be the interpreters of Scripture’s true trajectory. They perceive themselves to be the defenders of God’s “original intent” for revelation: that the people of God would progressively move toward the liberation and equality of all humans, regardless of status and gender. In this sense, then, the egalitarian position is one that thinks in a trajectory of progressive redemption.

Yet, not so surprisingly, the complementarians also see themselves as thinking in the trajectory of progressive redemption. John Piper states that,

God has not placed in us an all-pervasive and all-conditioning dimension of personhood and then hidden the meaning of our identity from us. He has shown us in Scripture the beauty of manhood and womanhood in complementary harmony. He has shown us the distortions and even the horrors that sin has made of fallen manhood and womanhood. And he has shown us the way of redemption and healing through Jesus Christ. [...] Our understanding is that the Bible reveals the nature of masculinity and femininity by describing diverse responsibilities for man and woman while rooting these differing responsibilities in creation, not convention. (Piper, 1991, 35)

Complementarians, then, see themselves as guardians of a biblical theology of gender. By biblical theology, I am referring to the discipline of theology concerned with the progressive development of redemption in all its various arenas throughout the narrative of Scripture. Not only are men and women equal in value, being, and before God, but they are entrusted with distinct, diverse roles that complete and nourish the creational purpose of God and, even though they are imperfectly fulfilled, can find their fulness and healing in the work of Jesus Christ.

What is significant about the self-perceptions of each view, interestingly enough, is they both understand themselves to be defenders or guardians against some encroaching theology or opposition that, ultimately, is violating the will of God and in dissent from the intent of the Scriptures. Neither side has understood itself as the proactive interpreter of Scripture or taking the offensive in a contest of theology and application. This, then, is a significant factor in how they perceive each other.

Apologetics: How Each View Defines the Other

The essential claim of egalitarianism (or “evangelical feminism”, as it is often called in complementarian literature) is not disputed by complementarian scholars and writers. Complementarians acknowledge fully the argument of egalitarians and, rather, question its grounding in the Scriptures – particularly how that understanding of Scripture can be compatible with doctrines pertaining to the sufficiency and infallibility of Scripture in every area of life. One text describes egalitarianism as a “step on the path toward [theological, heretical] liberalism” (Grudem, 2006, 42, 48, et alia.).

In responses that are both exegetical and excoriating, egalitarian interpretations have been described as “eccentric” (Ortlund, 1991, 103), bearing “refusal to submit to the authority of Scripture at all” (Grudem, 1991, 198). The curious reality of complementarians’ perceptions of egalitarianism is that, rather than characterizing its proponents anywhere in their arguments, they portray the egalitarian arguments and interpretations as contrary to Scripture, dangerous, or questionable. In the material surveyed, there was no assault on persons of egalitarian persuasion (although, it should be noted, that it is likely such assaults would exist in popular literature with complementarian sympathies).

This picture, however, is precisely what is maintained of egalitarian perception of complementarianism. S. Gallagher, in her history of the movement from an egalitarian perspective says that “conservatives continued to portray the movement as undermining both biblical truth and the traditional family” (2004, 226). Additionally, they are called “hierarchicalists” (Giles, 2002, 7) or some form thereof (Bilezikian, 2008, 7; Gallagher, 2004, 215), as well as the defenders of patriarchy (Gallagher, 2004; Giles, 2002).

In fairness, egalitarians will do their own exegesis and interpretation of the text and provide ample material to work with. However, they rarely, in the corpus of literature surveyed, respond or counter the exegetical work put forward by complementarians. Complementarian individuals or groups (such as the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood) are generally given a label of some sort (“hierarchical” or “patriarchal”) and, because of that label, their argument is dismissed, making room for the egalitarian exegesis.

Thus, in the realm of apologetics, there arises the first difference in perceptions. Where complementarians see the opposition as an “ism” or ideology, egalitarians typically perceive a particular set of individuals who are seeking to perpetuate an unjust patriarchy in the name of Biblical interpretation. It is not so simple, however, to draw a conclusion from this difference. While one could interpret this reality as being indicative of a lack of sound logic in the egalitarian perspective, it could also be interpreted as the appeal of the oppressed egalitarians against a group who is aiding the oppressor. Yet, the view of the present can only be limited evidence. Only when we begin to understand their respective visions for the local church in the years to come can we decide which it is.