Gays in Church Leadership

The question of who should be allowed into Church leadership has always been a heavily debated topic. For a long time only the most educated men of the higher classes were allowed to partake in Church leadership. It was in the 16th century that Martin Luther advocated for the "priesthood of all believers" (so long as they weren't women). It was not until nearly 500 years later that women were allowed into leadership positions in the Church; and many churches today still will not allow a woman into the pulpit. Only recently have certain churches from the Presbyterian and Episcopal denominations begun allowing gays into the pulpit. But of course today "Church leadership" means something far different from "pastor" or "priest."

The new model of Church leadership enlists qualified (or semi-qualified) people from the congregation and plants them into a ministry. Usually a governing board, or some other authority in the church, finds a person with the giftings required for a particular ministry, and places them in the leadership role over that ministry. The leader is given a crash course in leadership and ministry and then kicked out of the nest to fly. This undermines the past system where the Senior Pastor or Priest was head over the entire church. I think this is a good model of Church leadership for two reasons: 1. A pastor/priest is not a jack of all trades and will not function well as a leader over every ministry, 2. This was the model Jesus used. Jesus did not hoard the leadership responsibilities but passed them around to his disciples. Just look at the story of the feeding of the five-thousand. Did Jesus feed the five-thousand all by himself? Absolutely not. Jesus had some of his disciples in charge of the dining room ministry where they divided up the people and had them sit in particular groups. He had some of his disciples lead the kitchen ministry where they took the food from the little boy and gave it to Jesus, and then passed it out when it was blessed. He had some over the left-over committee, and so on. We know that Judas was in charge of their money as the treasurer of the disciples. So when we do church leadership in this way, it seems perfectly biblical.

But now we get into the question of who should be allowed into Church leadership. This is a broad based question that will require more than this blog can handle in order to answer. We know there are certain regulations Paul places down in 1 Timothy 3 in order for one to be an "overseer" of the church. I will not address the difficulties with translating "overseer" here. What I will say is that Paul's regulations are relevant to his culture, and that they are a step backward from what Jesus did. First of all, Paul states that the overseer must by the husband of one wife (v 2), assuming that the overseer can only be a man. But we know that Jesus placed disciples in leadership positions that were either not married or that were women. Mary and Martha, Lazarus' sisters were disciples of Jesus and hosted gatherings, very obviously acting in some leadership capacity. Mary Magdalene certainly held a leadership position in Jesus' Church. When we get into the book of Acts and into some of Paul's letters, we even read that Priscilla was the leader over a house Church. So it is obvious that a person's sexual orientation did not matter to Jesus when placing a person in a leadership role; what mattered was that person's devotion to him. If a person was devoted to Jesus and worked to please him in every way, the persons sexual orientation did not matter to him. Placing only straight men in leadership roles in the Church until recently has been a purely cultural thing based on our Western patriarchal society, and not on the model Jesus gave us.

In the post Is Homosexuality a Sin? I showed that homosexuality is not condemned in the Bible. But I am realistic enough to know that many churches are not evolved enough to acknowledge this truth. So the next strand of my argument is particularly for those churches. When we look at the individual people Jesus used as the future leaders of his Church, we see a bunch of rag-tag people, men and women, who were viewed as the most sinful of people in his culture. We see prostitutes and tax collectors. We even see murderers (in Paul and I might even argue in Peter). And if that is not enough, Jesus picked someone he knew would steal and cheat and betray him to oversee their finances: Judas Iscariot. So a person's sins did not matter to Jesus when he enlisted them into his kingdom. Public perception, to Jesus, especially the perception of the religious leaders of his time effected him in that he turned those perspectives on their heads. If the religious leaders called someone a sinner, Jesus called them saved. If the religious leaders called someone unworthy, he called them most valuable of all.

Looking at today's situation, it is the gays who the religious leaders are calling unworthy to take up leadership roles. It is the gays who the religious leaders are calling most sinful of all. From my analysis, then, it is the gays who are most valuable to be leaders in the church and it is the gays who are the most saved. The Christian gay population today, the Christians of LGBT community are dying to take up leadership roles in the Church. They long to serve the LORD in such deep and intimate ways. I know if Jesus was around today, because of the way the current Church leadership is treating the gay population, it would be them who he would pick to lead the ministries he set up. It's time the Church stopped following the tradition of men and looked at what Jesus did.
Blessings,
-Brandon

Mother's Day and the Love of God

Isaiah 66:13 As one whom his mother comforts, so I will comfort you;
And you will be comforted

In the gospels, Jesus teaches us to pray saying, "our Father," but as the above verse illustrates, God is also likened to a mother in the Bible. This often occurs when God's more tender side is being described, like above where Isaiah is telling Israel how God desires to comfort them, the way a mother comforts her child.

God's fatherly side is much more awe-inspiring than his tender side. The fatherly side is the side that protects and defends his people, the side that goes to war against his people's enemies. The fatherly side is the side that encourages his child to stand up and walk it off if he gets injured. The fatherly side is the side that judges and the side we often fear to turn to because, let's face it, our own fathers were a little rough and gave us that tough love.

But the motherly side is different. When we think about our own mothers, they were the one's we often went to because they were softer and more gentle with us. We would turn to them first because we knew that dad may not be so kind when we told him something.

God's fatherly side is often emphasized, but how much is his motherly side preached? We hear hints of God's tenderness in the Bible, but it is not often preached. For instance, Jesus says in Matthew:

Matthew 23:37 How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.

God's desire, like the mother of a teenager, is always to cover us under her protective wings to comfort us and take care of us, when all we want to do is run away. When a father is usually the one to show tough love, the mother is the one always to show unconditional love towards her children. Where the father's response to a rebellious child is often anger and sometimes even abandonment, the mother's response is always one of heartache and tears wanting to make it all better and even to bring reconciliation between father and child.

When we talk about God's unconditional love, it is her motherly side we are referring to that loves us no matter what we do or who we are. It is God the Mother who accepts us as we are no matter what. We know that we can turn to God the Mother, and she will never leave us nor forsake us. We can rest in her tender arms and know that nothing can touch us there.

As I think about my own mother, and how in a moment's panic, no matter what the crisis, I always turn to her first and know that she will have the answer, and that she is always able to comfort me. I know that no matter what goes on in my life, my mother will always be there for me and will never turn me away.

God's motherly side shows her tenderness and care for her people. God's motherly side condescends to be at our level so we are not afraid to approach her. God's motherly side holds and hugs us when we are upset because she knows we are hurting. God's motherly side is the all forgiving, all loving, all merciful side that forgives all sins. God's motherly side is the side we never have to be afraid to turn to.

This is the kind of person the above verses are describing when they describe God as a mother. We can turn to God during any crisis in our lives, we can tell God anything and be who we are around her, and God the Mother will wrap us in her tender and loving arms, and comfort us, and accept us.

It is difficult at times for us to remember God in this way. I think we often liken God to a critical father we had, or a legalistic pastor, skewing our perception and preventing us from seeing this motherly God who loves us so much. We may make mistakes sometimes, we may not always live to the standard we think God has created for us. But God the Mother loves us regardless. To God the Mother, every mistake is overlooked, every misdeed is covered and hidden by her. Maybe from time to time, when you think God the Father is displeased with you, or feel that you have committed a gross error, remember God the Mother and know her love and acceptance for you. I hope you know God the Mother like you know God the Father, and I hope you know God in this way, as a loving, caring, and accepting God. Happy mother's day.
Blessings,
-Brandon

Should the Christian Church Police the World?

In today's world whenever there is a question regarding the ethical implications of anything, you can be sure the Church (Catholic or Protestant) will have something to say about it. When Osama bin Laden was killed the other day, every Christian blog (including mine: Osama bin Laden's Death and the Christian Response) had something to say about it. The pope was quick to provide a response as well. With any contemporary issue, the Church is quick to provide their moral view and will do anything and pay anything to get their ethical code sanctioned by the law. We see this with issues such as gay marriage and abortion today.

But is the purpose of the Church to get laws passed and to tell people how to live their lives? Has God commissioned the Church to be the moral police of the world? Or does the Church have a different purpose that it is avoiding? To answer these questions we must go back and see what Jesus did.

In the Bible, whenever Jesus is walking around with his disciples, somehow or another they end up breaking some moral rule imposed by the Jewish Church. We have one example in Mark 2:23-28 where Jesus is walking through the grain fields with his disciples on the Sabbath and the disciples, who were hungry, began picking the grain to eat. As they always seemed to at the right time, the Pharisees arrived acting as the Jewish moral police. They questioned Jesus about why he allowed his disciples to break the Sabbath the way that they did. The Pharisees acted on behalf of the Jews to patrol the cities and villages and make sure that the Jewish laws were not being broken. They did this because in their mindset it was the role of the Jew to remain set apart and distinct from the Roman occupation. The only way to keep separate was to remain obedient to their laws. The second reason the Pharisees did this was because they felt that the more law abiding their community was, the better chance there was of the Messiah coming to rescue them.

But Jesus was not happy with the moral patrolling of the Pharisees, and he condemned them for misrepresenting the law. Jesus scolded them and reminded them that the Sabbath was made for human kind, not human kind for the Sabbath.

A second story we read can be found in Mark 7:1-23. In this story Jesus is sitting around with his disciples eating. The Pharisees who again were in the right place at the right time argued with Jesus about the hand washing technique of his disciples. They were not ritually cleansing their hands the way the law stated they should. Again, what we have is Jesus scolding the Pharisees for misrepresenting the law and for following the tradition of man rather than the true heart of the law.

Jesus did not like the concept of moral police. Jesus was against his followers patrolling the streets to make sure the rules were being kept. The main reason it seems that Jesus was so against that was was the risk of humankind misinterpreting the law and misrepresenting it. There is always the chance that the ethical code we are trying to make law, is based on our own bias and our own prejudice, rather than on what the law actually requires. It would be a dangerous thing if we caused laws to pass based on our own presuppositions, thinking the Bible justifies it, only to find out we misinterpreted the Bible.

The second reason Jesus was against policing people (notice he did not police the towns either) was because he was inaugurating a new time. Jesus was inaugurating a time where our sins no longer mattered because he offered forgiveness since perfection was not possible. Why would we go around establishing laws based on our religious perspective if our religious perspective preached grace and forgiveness? This kind of reasoning just seems absurd.

So, Jesus desired that his followers do not become moral police. That was not the mission of the body of Christ. So when Christians are out there bombing abortion clinics, picketing funerals, holding marches, and funding propositions against gay marriage, we are acting in opposition to Jesus' Scriptural example. When we act as the moral police within our own congregations, telling people what sinners they are and that they need to do this or that, we are acting unChrist-like. (The one exception to this is when someone sins against you personally, you are to use the Matthew 18 principle, something I will describe at another time).

You see, Jesus says, "Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye" (Matthew 7:3-5). And the truth of this statement is this: no one reaches perfection in this world. As long as we remain imperfect, all of us will have a log in our eye. We will never, in this lifetime, be in a position where we can see clearly enough to get the speck out of someone else's eye. Therefore, it is not the Church's job to legislate or to tell people when they are not living up to God's expectations (notice I did not say potential. When working with people, it is important for us to help them live up to their potential. This is more of an uplifting and empowering message than the message that you are not fulfilling God's expectations).

So, what is the Church's purpose? James, Jesus' own step brother, tells us: "Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world" (James 1:27). The first purpose described in this passage is for us to take care of the widows and orphans. Those two groups were the most neglected in Biblical times and so those who were closest with God used widows and orphans to illustrate the need for the Church to take care of marginalized groups, bringing them love and compassion and care.

A great example of this occurs late in the Roman empire when the plagues wiped out a great deal of the population. Most groups ran away from the their loved ones to try and escape the plagues and save themselves. It was the Christians who stuck around and cared for those who were dying. This was one of the major reasons the Church gained so many converts. The people saw that Christians cared about others, loved others, and took care of others. The Church was not out preaching to refrain from sin. The Church was not patrolling the streets making sure everyone was doing what Jesus taught. The Church simply lived the love they were called to spread.

We can apply this today by stepping down from our moral high horse and refraining from telling everyone how to live their lives. We can apply this by letting the LGBT community have their marriages and closing our mouths when it comes to morality. We can apply this by reaching out to marginalized communities like the LGBT folks and show them love, compassion, and care.

The second thing involved in James' statement about the Church is to "keep oneself unstained from the world." Notice how it says "oneself" and not "others." It is not the Church's responsibility to keep other people from sin. It is our own responsibility to keep ourselves from sin. We are to remove the log from our own eye before helping others with the speck in their own.

So now we know. It is not the purpose of the Church to be the moral police, for that was what the Pharisees did, and Jesus was quite displeased with them. Instead, it is our job to take care of the widows and the orphans (for today can we say the gays and the poor?) and to keep our individual selves unstained from the world.
Blessings,
-Brandon