John H Armstrong

Africa and the Free Market

I’ve engaged more than a few Christians in public forums on the problem of poverty in Africa. No continent has more problems with true poverty and caring for the desperately poor than Africa. It has, up to now, resisted almost every effort to change this situation. But the times are changing, slowly but surely.

A new report from the African Development Bank says that Africa’s middle class will triple to more than one billion people in the next half century. This will not close the huge gap between Africa and Asia but it will bring good news for huge numbers of Africans who presently face a very grim future.

This same report provides a bright outlook on African growth—it predicts the gross national product of Africa will expand by more than 5% per year.

Understand that Africa has never experienced such economic optimism. It has been no more than an afterthought in the global economy until recently. This is now clearly, slowly changing. If the leaders of African nations, and this is the real wild card in this scenario, seize this moment then change could be even deeper and longer lasting. If they revert to past failures and corruption then the people will suffer for generations to come.

There is honest debate about how large Africa’s middle class really is at the present. Some say that it is as low as 2% of the total population. Regardless of what reports you believe their is hope for new African economic growth. Small business is being fostered by investment and micro-loans, something Christians are doing with much success.

China and India have lifted more people into the middle class than any two nations in the world, at least all over the last two decades. The reason this has happened is that both countries have embraced global markets and promoted more economic freedom. China is a long way from being a truly free nation. India is the world’s largest democracy. Both nations have lured global manufacturing but Africa could seize this moment and offer cheaper labor and service than Asia and thereby grow faster. Will it? Time will tell.

A great deal of this growth depends on politics and good leaders. While we give to support the poorest in Africa, which Christians should do, let us also work for expanding the economy of this needy continent. To do so is simply good economics linked with freedom and real compassion.

The Dangerous Poison of Sectarianism

In my book, Your Church Is Too Small, I argue that sectarianism is almost always found where disunity abounds among Christians. This is not a novel argument but one that Christians in general, and conservative Christians in particular, do not see clearly enough. We are far more sectarian than we generally think when we consider our own views and actions.

The word sectarianism comes from the Latin word secta, which means a faction or party. It comes from the word sequi, which meant “to follow.” Generally sectarians follow a sect leader, or leaders, of some type. The word sect generally referred, in church history, to a group that broke away from a larger group, often in protest over distinct views. If used this broadly the term can refer to almost any religious disagreement. In this absolute sense the earliest Christians were a sect of the Jews.

As I use the term sectarianism it more generally refers to a doctrinaire commitment to one’s own version or views about the church and the faith. It often results in narrow-minded devotion deeply rooted in prejudice and emotion. Those who disagree are condemned, sometimes harshly. In history Christians have killed Christians because of sectarian response. Some sectarians disavow all relationship to an established Christian Church. A correspondingly negative connotation is found in the modern word tribalism. 

A New Form of Excommunication

The Episcopal Church in the U.S. has been embroiled in deep controversy for many years. It reached the breaking point for thousands of devout Anglicans in 2003 when an openly partnered gay bishop, Gene Robinson (born 1947), was consecrated as Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire. Robinson is widely known for being the first openly gay, non-celibate priest to be ordained as a bishop in a major Christian denomination that believes in the historic episcopate. Now, eight years later, the church is even more deeply split.

Even before the consecration of Bishop Robinson numbers of Episcopalians had begun to leave, forming several different Anglican church communions. Most of these early churches and priests submitted to the oversight of African Anglican bishops. I have several friends who followed this course and I’ve had the joy of speaking to a national gathering of these Anglicans.

Since Robinson’s consecration many, many more lifelong Episcopalians have left their church. Among these are even more of my friends. And numbered among those who have not left the Episcopal Church are other good friends. The sad fact is that to openly admit this creates tensions on every side in the midst of such a heated battle.

This historic breakup is genuinely tragic. On both sides there have been rash and hostile actions taken in debate. Though my sympathies are clearly aligned with those who believe that consecrating a bishop who is living in open immorality is wrong I cannot defend some of the actions my conservative friends have taken. The reproach of separation, and what often follows such action, clings to many of their otherwise fine efforts for the kingdom. Those friends who most encouraged me remained as long as possible (conscience is never a humanly uniform guide) inside the Episcopal Church but many of them finally left with tears and great sadness in a spirit of Christian love and humility. They are, to put it mildly, sick about this breakdown in Christian relationships within their beloved church. They did not leave because they hated someone or because they loved a good old fashioned ecclesial fight. They left because they felt their own call to ministry demanded they leave once their church had taken a moral stance that was not defensible biblically or historically. And almost everyone I know in this category continues to be in cordial relationship with many of their brothers and sisters who did not leave. Friendships can survive even ecclesial battles if the love of Christ prevails!

I often criticize conservative Christians for their penchant to divide and create new schism in the church. Today I grieve over the schism and tragic commitment to destruction that has been taken in the liberal Episcopal Church in the United States. This is especially true with regard to the leadership of Katharine Jefferts Schori (born 1954), the 26th Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church in the United States. Let me explain.

In 2009 the breakaway Episcopalians in the U.S. and Canada formed the Anglican Church in North America. I’ve been in conversation with leaders on both sides of this breakaway over the last few years. Again, I have friends who chose differently about how to respond to the moral crisis they see within the Episcopalian Church. The Anglican Church in North America reports 100,000 members in nearly 1,000 congregations. (Remember, there were large numbers who had already left or moved to other contexts before 2009!) What makes the Anglican Church in North America different is that it has been formally recognized by many Anglican primates outside the United States. And various Anglican bishops are working internationally to preserve the unity of the church as much as possible. As of this writing 22 of 38 provinces in the Anglican Church have declared themselves to be in “broken” or “impaired” communion with the Episcopal Church in the United States.

Yet in spite of all this global unrest in the great Anglican communion Bishop Schori says this new Anglican group is encroaching on her church’s jurisdiction. As a result of this belief she has authorized dozens of lawyers “to protect the assets of the Episcopal Church for the mission of the Episcopal Church.” On the surface this stance might seem to make sense but consider what she is really saying. Alan Haley, a canon lawyer who has represented a diocese in one such case, says the Episcopal Church has dedicated $22 million to legal actions against departing clergy, congregations and dioceses.

But it doesn’t stop there. The Episcopal Church has increased these attacks in recent months. It has decided that any church which breaks away, and buys its property from the Episcopal Church, must disaffiliate from all other Anglican groups.

In September a well-known Pittsburgh congregation, All Saints Episcopal Anglican Church, walked away from its building, inhabited since 1928. The congregation called the Episcopal Church “mean-spirited” and said it had denied them their “freedom of religious affiliation.” Having read both sides of this debate, and followed it with growing sadness, I have to agree with All Saints Church in this case. It seems liberal Christians are liberal only up to a point. Then it seems that it is OK to be “mean spirited” in the same way they rightly charge of some conservatives.

Some churches have opted to disaffiliate rather than spend years in expensive litigation. Two congregations in Pennsylvania and two in Virginia have promised they will not affiliate with other Anglicans for five years after they bought their property. But affiliation with a bishop, by definition, is essential to Anglican identity. This position leaves the church unable to work with local and national church bodies on things like disaster relief, youth retreats, educational seminars, clergy insurance and pension programs, etc. (Many ministers are losing their insurance and pensions as this tragedy unfolds!)

In 1 Corinthians 6 the apostle urges Christians to not settle their church issues before the courts. I have seen this text randomly applied in ways that suggest no Christian should ever use the courts to settle a true legal grievance with another believer. I find this interpretation weak at best. But what is clear from Paul’s counsel is that a church should not sue a church. The Episcopal Church is telling Christians where they can and can’t worship and whether or not they can remain Anglicans. They are clearly using the courts to fight churches and ministers who want their freedom of conscience. Other denominations who have trended in this same progressive direction on sexual practice have maintained that they will not follow this legal and spiritual pattern. They say they respect the freedom of conscience. I hope they really mean it and do not follow the Episcopal Church in this regard. Time will tell since religious battles like these are often unsettled and messy.

What does Bishop Schori have to say about this complete capitulation to the tactics of opposing churches and leaders in secular courts? “We can’t sell to an organization [note what she calls a church here] that wants to put us out of business.” Read her sentence again. She is really saying that this struggle is a kind of holy war within her church and one side must defeat the other! By calling these congregations “an organization” she may mean what she says; i.e., these are not churches! No fundamentalist could have said this with more prejudice and fervor. She adds that her job is to assure that “no competing branch of the Anglican Communion impose on the mission strategy” of the Episcopal Church. What mission strategy is this?

In this instance actions do speak much louder than words. Bishop Schori, as recent cases plainly demonstrates, could not be clearer in her intentions. When Good Shepherd Church in Binghamton, N.Y., left the Episcopal Church the congregation offered to pay for their building. In return the Episcopal Church sued the congregation to seize their property. What did the Episcopal Church do to reflect the “mission strategy” that Bishop Schori speaks about? They sold the property for a fraction of the price the congregation would have paid them and today the church building is a mosque! So much for a mission strategy.

Bishop Schori openly expressed the conclusion that the Episcopal Church would rather sell property to Muslims, Baptists, or even barkeepers, than fellow Anglicans who disagree with the Episcopal Church. Remember, this is war and she is packing the weapons of her warfare in both her language and actions.

Bishop Robert Duncan (born 1948) was deposed from his ministry by the Episcopal House of Bishops in 2008 by a vote of 88 to 35 in a closed meeting in Salt Lake City. This action removed Duncan from ordained ministry on the grounds of “abandonment of the communion of this church.” This “abandonment” amounted to Duncan’s support of Anglicans who disagreed with the Episcopal Church’s actions on sexual practice. Today Duncan is an archbishop in the Anglican Church in North America. He says his group has no intention to replace the Episcopal Church in the United States. I have many friends who know Bishop Duncan well. He served the Episcopal Church faithfully and was bishop of Colorado and then the bishop of Pittsburgh. He is a noble and generous Christian man. These Anglicans, like Archbishop Duncan, are not trying to destroy the Episcopal Church. They disagree with her actions so deeply that they feel compelled to follow their conscience into the ecclesial wilderness. But they are not out to destroy but rather to build and do Christ’s mission. More giving and activity in mission has been generated by these new alignments than by all the efforts of the Episcopal Church before this schism. Sad but true.

It is one thing to tell a congregation that you cannot have the property that you worship in each week because it belongs legally to the diocese. It is another to tell them to abandon what they believe or face legal action. Bishop Duncan says that the ongoing litigation is “scandalous” but what is worse is that the Episcopal Church is now saying you must abandon the tenets of your faith or we will punish you in court!

Many of you might say, “If these leaders and Christians believe they are following the Bible and conscience they should simply leave and get over it.” If you this think this then you show that you do not understand either Anglican polity or principle. What was always the “middle way” of gracious, orthodox generosity has become a way that now demands radical conformity beyond imagination. The Episcopal Church says to fellow Christians, who are Anglicans in faith and practice, if you do not agree with us in our liberal doctrinal and political stances then we will sue you and make you conform or we will drive you out! We will make sure you cannot be Anglicans! And we suggest that Catholics have abused power.

This practice needs to be seen for what it is—a new form of excommunication employed by progressive and liberal Christians who have always been the first to speak against other forms of excommunication. This is more than an irony. It is great tragedy!

First in Our Household

A home without children is quiet, sometimes too quiet. Most of the time my home is very quiet. But sometimes it is filled with the laughter of my grandchildren, who are a delight. But it is always filled by the presence of our “third” child, Neo. Neo is ten and half years old but doing pretty well for a senior dachshund. She has actually become more active the last three years because of her cousin, Latte. Latte spends a lot of time with Neo. When Latter and Neo are together they teach each other various new social responses. The worst such social behavior is what I call a dachshund “bark off.” Latte usually begins it though Neo has learned well and clearly is no angel. The “two girls” sit on top of our living room sofa and “guard” the house from anything that moves. When I am trying to think, read or write they can drive me to distraction and I yell at them to cut it out. But then they are so cute you can’t be mad at them, at least for long.

Anita decided Neo would help us begin our Christmas season early this year. She took this photo of our beloved furry friend last week. Does she look excited to you?

Hymns of Thanksgiving: A Special Podcast from Beeson Divinity School

A special  Beeson Divinity School podcast on the great hymns of Thanksgiving will surely prove encouraging and inspiring to many of you. You can find it here. This podcast is a discussion between Timothy George and Paul Richardson (past president of the Hymn Society of the United States and Canada), and includes choral recordings of the hymns that are included in the podcast. Dr. George and all my friends at Beeson who worked on this project envisioned this as something that families could listen to together on their Thanksgiving road trips. It is a way to turn your hearts toward God’s goodness to his beloved people. Among other things you will learn in this podcast is the historical fact that many of our most loved Thanksgiving hymns came out of times of extreme suffering.

College Football’s Most Compelling Weekend

Readers know I love college football. I watch an NFL game now and then but almost never see an entire game, including the over-hyped, much ballyhooed Super Bowl. One reason for my love has to be that I matriculated as a freshman at the University of Alabama in 1967. I enjoyed two seasons of football with Bear Bryant on the sidelines. The two seasons were mediocre by the Bear’s standards.(Yes, I did meet the greatest coach ever and yes football dominates the fall semester on campus in the minds of most students!) I later finished two degrees at Wheaton College, where I now teach as an adjunct professor in evangelism and leadership.)

This weekend college football had the most momentous and exciting group of games in decades. The BCS, which is the formula used to determine the top two teams who will play for the championship, is maligned in many quarters. Most people clamor for a playoff system. (The argument is always about “what’s fair.” Personally, I did not realize that fairness was required in every part of life.) If ever there was evidence for a playoff then this year would be that year.  Shucks, the present occupant of the White House has even used his influence to argue for a playoff system.

I like the BCS system though it still needs a few changes. Why? The present system creates some amazing scenarios that actually make every game count right down to the final regular season games. Think about what happened this weekend, in the space of a mere 24 hours. It is almost a football version of the popular TV show, 24. Every episode was alive with intrigue, suspense, heroes and huge second-guessing. It made for remarkable theater, which is what this is all about.

Going into this weekend LSU was rightly ranked at the top, as one of only two title-game-ready unbeatens. (I admire Houston’s team and they are unbeaten still. But does anyone think they would beat the top four or five teams? We will find out if they go to a major bowl game this year.) The other unbeaten, Oklahoma State, went to Ames, Iowa, on Friday evening to face an Iowa State team that was a four touchdown underdog. And this is an Iowa State team that has never beaten a team in the top six in any poll. What a scene and what an amazing overtime win for Iowa State, all but ending Oklahoma State’s shot at the championship. (There is still enough potential for more chaos should several teams ahead of State falter and OSU soundly beats Oklahoma the final week. But Friday, when the pressure was on, Oklahoma State went down in dramatic fashion to a well-coached Iowa State team.

Then yesterday it all got more chaotic. Oregon, ranked number four with their only loss to LSU, lost at home to USC when the Ducks missed a 37-yard field goal try at the end of the game. And number five Oklahoma, the other serious contender with only one loss went  on the road to play an inspired Baylor team that stunned them. What a great finish in that game with a long pass for a TD by quarterback, Robert Griffin III, who I think is the best overall player in America. In addition highly regarded Clemson got hammered by an undergone team from North Carolina State.

So this weekend had four huge upsets among the top tier teams leaving only two one-loss teams to seriously challenge LSU in the BCS Championship game on January 9. The BCS rankings will be out tonight and it seems quite evident that LSU remains a strong number one. It also seems self-evident that Alabama gets in at number two. If, and remember chaos happens in college football routinely, LSU beats Arkansas on Friday then they win the SEC West. They should beat Georgia the following week, which could be interesting too. But if Alabama beats Auburn on Saturday (no simple guarantee in this intense rivalry) then the “rematch” between LSU and Alabama is very likely. Many in the media hate the idea but it should happen if no more chaos ensues. The point of the system is to match the two best teams, not the two teams people want to see play because LSU has already beaten Alabama once. (If you saw this game you would have to say the two teams were evenly matched.) So, can I use the R word here, as in rematch between the Tide and the Tigers? You bet. That’s what I hoping for in this chaotic season.

Just in case you care the BCS standings will be officially announced this evening (ESPN at 7:15 Central Standard Time). It seems likely that the top three teams will all from the SEC. Even more amazing, and this has never happened, they are all in one division of only six teams. LSU is number one, Alabama is number two and Arkansas is number three, at least as I see it in the BCS Countdown show.

You can make a dozen cases for having a playoff but I like the system that we now have with one possible exception. I believe the system could add a plus-one and match the top four teams so that we get a better sense of who really is the best team. The other formulas I’ve seen all change the  the bowl system in a way that I hope never happens. My guess is that eventually we will get some kind of playoff system with four or eight teams. Money will likely cause it to happen. But remember, if you are my age you lived through the pre-BCS era of entirely human polls determining the best team after the season. Long before we had computers to determine strength of schedule, and television to see the games, plus all the other related data used in determining the BCS rankings, a group of voters who never even saw a team play ranked them. These polls alone determined the number one team. And human bias and regional loyalty (and some dislike) determined the outcome far too often. I still recall a perfect season that Alabama had in 1966 but because they were not yet integrated poll-voters outside the South rewarded Notre Dame and Michigan State with the top spots even though they had played to a tie. And they did not have as tough a schedule as Alabama had that season. If this is present system is chaos then I like chaos better than the old way. It actually made for 24-hours of the finest football I’ve seen in a long, long time.

Does Money Directly Impact Marriage?

Married couples that care a great deal about money are much more likely to suffer from less peace and harmony in their marriage. This conclusion, from a Brigham Young University Provo, Utah, and William Patterson University, Wayne, New Jersey, study of 1,700 couples comes as no surprise to anyone who has counseled married couples for as many years as I have. A couple’s attitude toward money has always been one of the big three problems that destroys a marriage. (The other two common problems are sex and in-laws!)

In this recent survey couples who said money was not important to them scored 10% to 15% better on measures of relationship quality, such as marriage stability, than couples in which one or both partners were materialistic. Also, couples in which both partners said they valued a lot of money—about 20% of the total in the survey—fared worse than couples who were mismatched and just had one materialist in the marriage.

Jason Carroll, a BYU professor of family life and the lead author of the study, said, “Couples where both spouses are materialistic were worse off on nearly every measure we looked at.” He added, “There is a pervasive pattern in the data of eroding communication, poor conflict-resolution and low responsiveness to each other.”

Dr Carroll thought that the way couples viewed having money would be  significant but what was much more significant was materialism itself. Materialism often caused spouses to make poor financial decisions, such as overspending and running up debt, which strains relationships in almost every instance. Even more problematic is this—the more materialistic one or both spouses may be the less likely they are to pay close attention to their mate and their marriage.

This research confirms two things that I’ve observed from more than four decades of counsel and anecdotal research. First, materialism corrupts life in a deeply profound way, a way that is often not easily seen on the surface. Second, marriages suffer considerable harm because of materialism. And, please note, the amount of money is not the real issue. What matters is the inordinate love of money. The counsel of the apostle Paul is plain enough for all to see.

⁶ But godliness with contentment is great gain. ⁷ For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. ⁸ But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. ⁹ Those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. ¹⁰ For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

The “love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.” Money is important. Without it we cannot buy food, clothing and shelter. Without it we cannot have access to good reading, education, better jobs, etc. We all need some money. One critical evil is that it destroys marital harmony and creates family breakdown.

Note further that 1 Timothy 6:8, in the above text, says we should be content with food and clothing. Having riches is a challenge to deep faith but the real challenge is the temptation and trap that is set by foolish and harmful desires. These will lead you to destruction and ruin.

“Say It Ain’t So Joe!”

This famous line in my title comes from the infamous Black Sox baseball scandal that occurred early in the twentieth century. As the story goes a young lad, who loved “Shoeless Joe” Jackson of the Chicago White Sox, could not believe his hero has cheated. In the movie version of “Eight Men Out” the boy plaintively said, “Say it ain’t so, Joe!”

That’s about how I felt last week as we watched the Joe Paterno story unfold through every news medium possible. In this case even a sports story became a national tragedy. Not only did the actions of a famous coach (or his non-action in this sad case) make global news but it galvanized a whole new conversation about sex abuse. And well it should. But how could Joe Paterno, a decent and good man by every account, have failed to deal with this tragedy and thus allowed children to be molested by a predator? How could he not report this crime when he had clear eyewitness information about Jerry Sanduksy’s behavior? We will not know for sure until we hear from Joe. And we may not hear from him for days if the attorney he has hired tells him to remain silent. That is truly sad because I want to think the best about Joe. I also want to grasp how he could have failed to do what was obviously the right thing to do.

One of my favorite opinion writers, the conservative Ross Douthat of the New York Times, concluded in a brilliant article he penned last week:

It was precisely because Joe Paterno had done so much good for so long that he could do the unthinkable, and let an alleged child rapist continue to walk free in Penn State’s Happy Valley. Bad and mediocre people are tempted to sin by their own habitual weaknesses. . . . But good people, heroic people, are led into temptation by their very goodness — by the illusion, common to those who have done important deeds, that they have higher responsibilities than the ordinary run of humankind. It’s precisely in the service to these supposed higher responsibilities that they often let more basic ones slip away.

For now I believe Douthat has explained Joe’s behavior as well as anyone I’ve read or heard. A good man, but a man just like you and me, had high responsibility and was always on his guard in the big moments he faced. The danger is that he, and we too, could let down our guard and the most basic ones can slip away. The Song of Solomon 2:15 says:  “Take us the foxes, THE LITTLE FOXES, that spoil the vines: for our vines have tender grapes.” In Joe’s case it seems that what appeared like “little foxes” were much bigger than he knew and his judgment was seriously impaired. The results are tragic.

Doing Reformed Theology

I am sometimes asked, “Are you a Reformed theologian?” This post is a brief attempt to give an honest (and simple) answer to this question.

First, this question infers that I am a theologian. The answer to this part of the question is both yes and no. Every Christian is a theologian in some sense, either a good one or a bad one. If you think about your faith, in this case the Christian faith, then you are a Christian theologian. There are trained and untrained theologians. There are lay theologians, teaching theologians, writing theologians, etc. I do formally teach theology but I am not a professional writing theologian who has been highly trained an academic doctoral context for this noble purpose. I have limitations and freely admit it.

The great danger I see here is twofold. Untrained theologians can become rather self-confident because they have read a few “old” books, listened to their favorite teachers, and then strongly adopted what they believe to be true Christian theology. When they do this to the exclusion of all other Christian thought it then divides and creates real harm inside the church. It even impacts our mission before the world as well. In my estimation both Calvinists and Arminians, to use one evangelical example, are guilty of this problem. It is so easy, if you have adopted one side or the other in this centuries old debate, to read only your side favorably and then label the other side negatively. When this is done serious reflection and continued growth is often the great loser.

Trained theologians are sometimes guilty of a very different problem. They sometimes show an almost complete disdain for non-professional theologians. (There are wonderful exceptions to this tendency!) What we all need to keep in mind here is the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers. Pastors and professional teachers of theology should be especially careful to see their theological work as “service to the whole body.” They are not engaging in a profession apart from the catholic church.

Second, the question I’ve put to myself (because others have done it for me as well) is this: “Am I truly Reformed?” The answer to this is again a qualified yes and no. This will require a careful answer.

If being Reformed means that I accept one or more of the great confession(s) from the 16th century, say the Westminster or the Belgic, as the final word on biblical theology then the answer is a strong no. While I have affirmed the “Three Forms of Unity,” and serve as an ordained minister of Word and Sacrament in the Reformed Church in America, this does not mean that I agree with every word of these fallible human confessions. I find a broad agreement with them for sure but I am not required to hold them without exception. Even the most conservative Reformed denominations allow “exceptions” for elders and ministers.

The problem I am getting is best stated by a friend who left an independent church many years ago and said to me, upon joining a very conservative Reformed church, “In the Westminster Confession I have found the most nearly perfect expression of faith ever penned. I need no more theology than what I have found here.” That is not only a wrong way to use a creed but it is not truly Reformed.

If being Reformed means that I am “young and restless” then I am neither. I am 62 and no longer restless about life or theology. I find this recent emphasis, which has grown in some conservative circles, to be unhelpful to the greater goal of missional-ecumenism. It puts up old barriers and thereby destroys relationships with people who are deemed “wrong” about a wide range of ways to frame the faith. I believe a more ancient-future faith paradigm is faithful to the overall witness of Scripture. In such a paradigm we can use and respect ancient creeds but we can also look to the future with faith and hope as we continue to think and confess the Christian faith in every unique circumstance.

Yes, I am a Reformed Protestant Christian. But I am first, above all else, a Christ follower who loves the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. This means that Reformed, at least for me, is a modifier of my Protestantism, informing my view of the church and its faith in my own context. It seems to me that the proper priority of these commitments is both missional and ecumenical. Some think this type of confession is ludicrous. I believe their confidence is too deeply rooted in their presuppositions about creeds and traditions. I also believe that their personal sense of how certain they are about their own theological system and tradition is a sign of their overconfidence in human systematizing. I love this tradition but I do not hold it in this way. I follow the post-Reformation statement, which no one is sure where it came from originally: “Reformed and always reforming.” I hold this view because this is how I believe we can and do perceive truth in our present state.

My own denomination (Reformed Church in America) recently began the process of adding a fourth doctrinal statement to the three major creeds/catechisms from the Reformation era. I refer to The Belhar Confession. This modern confession comes from South Africa. It deals with modern concerns about racism and systemic forms of sin in the church and culture. The consideration of adoption created a huge stir in Reformed Church settings. It barely passed after a long process of adoption. A few other groups have looked at it, but chosen not to take action. Many conservative Reformed Christians simply do not like Belhar. The two primary arguments made against it, so far as I can tell, go as follows: (1) It does not rise to the same level of doctrinal maturity and wholeness as our past standards and thus it is not, strictly speaking, a creed. (2) It implicitly opens the door to approving homosexual practice since the principal South African author of Belhar now approves homosexual practice. It is argued that by approving it we are adopting a creed that will in itself make it easier to embrace this change too. Without a long explanation about these two points I find the first argument seriously worth consideration while I find the second weak and deeply rooted in fear and false logic.

My point in bringing up The Belhar Confession is that the oldest Reformed denomination in America is now in the process of formally adding this twentieth century creed to its historic standards. This says something important about what the word Reformed really means, at least to one family of Reformed Christians with whom I share fellowship. A Reformed church and theologian is thus never to become static. Let me express this more fully.

I believe we do need new creeds. We don’t need them every few years, or decades, but now and then history calls for new ways of expressing the faith in the context the church confesses the faith and serves the gospel. The Christian faith can never be adequately captured by, or expressed in, one creed for all time. This means that even the ancient creeds, which are given prominence by the whole church, are not infallible. We can and should continue to think, grow and reflect upon biblical truth within our own culture and context. This requires good theology, not a rote recitation of a human creed as an infallible instrument that defines the faith once for all time.

We must remember that confessing the faith is always an ongoing process, one that must be carefully related to the missional situation in which we find ourselves at the moment. I can think of many illustrations of this point but none is more relevant to the last century than the German Church situation in the 1930s and the need for The Barmen Declaration. This short and impressive doctrinal statement challenged Nazism through the simple power of the gospel of Jesus in a very challenging context. This statement of simple faith, written when dark clouds of judgment loomed, was a masterful Reformed response to the times.

Thus I conclude: I am a Reformed theologian in the truest and best sense of this word. I believe the historical creeds and confessions have given us great and important insights that should be preserved going forward. But I also believe that the precise form of our confession and apologetic for the faith must continue to change. This is not relativism. It is most assuredly not liberal or conservative in the way we often carelessly use these terms to undermine real discussion and growth. What this is, in my humble view, is an expression of true confidence in both Word and Spirit. God alone will lead us forward in faith, hope and love. My Reformed faith can embrace deep mystery, engage with all parts of the Christian church and thereby seek the unity of the whole church in love. It can do this because this Reformed faith can engage in continuing dialog with the goal of unity in mission kept before us as we move into a future under God’s providence. This kind of Reformed theology is being done the world over by great minds and hearts. But many conservatives in America fear this kind of Reformed theology very deeply. In my understanding this fear is rooted in cultural constructs that create profound emotional discomfort. This is never in the best interest of Reformed theology or true faith, hope and love—the marks of the type of Christian faith that serves Jesus and his mission holistically.

Women, Ministry and the Paradox of Faith

Very few issues divide biblically-informed Christians from one another quite like the debate over the role of men and women in Scripture and the church. Over sixty-plus years of life I have discovered a wide-range of responses and views. From almost every view I have heard I have discovered a new way to read a particular text and to understand what the commentator believes this means for the modern church. Many of these claims to precise certitude were quite common on the side I once held. This prompted me to rethink how I read Scripture and what conclusions I should draw from my reading.

Within evangelical Protestant circles the two most common stances  are called egalitarianism and complementarianism. I move in churches and among people on both sides of this debate. Broadly speaking, I do not generally advocate one position over the other because my mission is to promote unity among all churches and Christians. But I can’t avoid the debate since I do hold a view. I try to express that view in a way that respects those I disagree with. But at times some will not allow this to happen regardless of my efforts.

Having said this I have openly explained how I changed my mind on the role of women in the church. My story is included in what I believe to be an excellent collection of personal stories written by fellow evangelicals. My former Bible professor at Wheaton College, Dr. Alan Johnson, graciously invited me to contribute to this unique volume several years ago. I was pleased to offer my own narrative. The book was published late last year. If you would like to see how many of us were led to change our minds on this matter the book makes for interesting reading.

The simple, self-evident truth is that we have two groups of solid Christian leaders promoting two quite different positions by means of publishing, teaching and conferencing. The egalitarian group is called Christians for Biblical Equality. CBE says that it is “advancing a biblical foundation for gift-based rather than gender-based ministry and service.” That is the way I understand my view. I obviously believe that my thinking is rooted in biblical teaching and theology or I would not hold it, much less teach it in any context (including this blog). The complementarian group is called Christians for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. CBMW says it is “promoting God’s glorious design for men and women.” Who could disagree with that goal in a simple sense? But of course the issue is in the details. In short, the CBE position comes down to this—leadership and ministry is completely open to women. Gender is not an issue in leadership. Moral excellence, God-given gifts and divine calling are the issue. CBMW believes that it is not this simple. Women are not to (formally) lead (or teach) men as pastors/elders/bishops, etc. The unique difference between men and women makes this so because of creation, as well as several New Testament injunctions that seem to forbid women from teaching men or holding (pastoral) ecclesial office.

Both groups are represented by respected and beloved Bible scholars and teachers. Both groups are led by people that I count as my friends and as fellow Christians. The simple fact is that in churches of all types and sorts you will find pastors and leaders on one side or the other in this debate/disagreement. (I am excluding non-Protestants here since the priesthood is closed to women in Catholicism and Orthodoxy.) While I hold to a position that I believe rightly understands both the Scripture and the church I do not disdain or attack those who disagree with me. I once held the other position on this matter so how arrogant would it be for me to now condemn faithful Christians who do not agree with my present understanding? But I am willing to discuss this issue in an atmosphere of mutual respect. I do the same on many similar issues. I do not understand why this doctrine should be placed in the center of doctrinal faithfulness, especially among evangelical Protestants. This is not an “essential” doctrinal stance so we can, and should, pursue it in liberty and with charity.

But, and this is important, this is an issue that will not go away because of good will. This should prompt us to think about it very, very carefully. Healthy discussion is welcomed by healthy and mature Christians. I feel called to make my own views known in certain contexts. This is not my explicit mission but it is my decided view. I think one’s view does impact how they actually handle some very important issues so all of us should be persuaded in our own minds as to what we believe and why. I encourage churches and church leaders to faithfully seek better understanding of this issue and then to have the courage to pursue what it is they believe the Scripture teaches about it. I would begin by listening to the other side. I make it a practice to always begin here when I see godly and good Christians who disagree with me. When I began to do this about fifteen years ago I was stunned at what I had not seen. When I listened without fear to a view that I did not want to emotionally embrace for decades I was moved to rethink. Can we not do this kind of listening and learning without rancor toward one another? I believe that we can but I am not sure all of us want to try at times.

Having said this I would like to commend the work of my friend Mimi Haddad and CBE. If you’ve never seen their ministry or their excellent and wide-ranging material please check it out. With her permission I reprint (below) Dr. Haddad’s most recent CBE news article called “The Paradox of Faith.” I hope you find it helpful. I also hope that some of you will be led to rethink your position. If you find yourself agreeing with me and Dr. Haddad then please support CBE. I support them as a committed member. I believe they are deserving of your support if you agree with them. Frankly, I love what this ministry does around the globe for more than half the members of the Christian Church—women!

The tragedy of how women are treated in many male-dominated cultures should alarm us, regardless of our view of the biblical text. CBE actually helps Christians like me understand why I should support our sisters in Christ more openly. For this I am truly thankful.

Paradox of Faith

Dr. Mimi Haddad

Have you ever wondered why the Bible remains a best-seller? After all, the teachings of Scripture can be downright unappealing. This is never more the case than in the words and deeds of Jesus. The gospels, for example, make it clear that each human being, regardless of their upbringing, accomplishments, or fine intentions is spiritually bankrupt and in need of salvation. Furthermore, despite our rebirth in Christ, becoming holy is arduous work. And, throughout our lives we are called to some very unpleasant efforts in our relationships, like turning the other cheek, forgiving the offenses of others, going an extra mile, loving our neighbor as ourselves (whether or not they are lovable!), giving our cloaks away, and more! Now, I ask you, why is this book a best-seller?

If you've been around Jesus and the Holy Spirit, you realize that there is a paradox in these seemingly impossible commands. For example, we find that in casting our bread upon the water when we give of our resources, even though small, they actually return to us in some unexpected and manifold way. Every time you extend yourself to others, even when exhausted, you find that something deep within you is refreshed and restored. While Scripture asks us to store our riches in heaven, instead of on Earth, in doing so, we also discover that the more we give away, strangely, the more we seem to have to give away again. The paradox of faith runs so entirely counter to any culture in history. It consistently challenges us where humanity has been so often misguided—that in caring for others, we too, are nurtured.

Perhaps this is why Scripture remains a best-seller, that in trusting the teachings of the Bible we experience the expansive joy that comes not from saving our lives, but, paradoxically, from giving them away as Christ did. The creator and ruler of heaven and earth came not to be served, but to serve sacrificially. Christ's leadership was not control, power, domination, or entitlement, which humans so often pursue. Rather, as Jesus said in Matthew 20:25, to be great is to be last, to be first is to become the servant of all—as he was. As we join Christ in serving others, we encounter, ironically, a release from the toxic and self-minimizing need to hold power over others, to be first, and to be served.

In my work at CBE, I have had the pleasure of working beside our founders and members—Christians who have walked many miles with Jesus, so much so that they embody the paradox of faith in ways that inspire me each day. They have imbibed the teachings of Scripture and have allowed the Spirit in the Text to shape and change them into radical people who embrace leadership as service and service as leadership; that in giving to others we receive even more. The largeness of their spirits is dazzling! I remember one member who, after giving sacrificially to CBE, said, "You will never know how much joy it brings me to give and serve CBE." This is indeed, the paradox of faith. And, it is because of so many like her that CBE is able to give generously to others asking for resources on biblical equality in their contexts and languages.

If there was ever a time to remember the paradox of faith, it is next week, on Wednesday, November 16—Give to the Max Day. For 24 hours there are many opportunities to make your simple donation count for more. To learn more click here. Thank you!

Mimi Haddad
President, CBE