Tell me, O Octopus, I begs,
Is those things arms, or is they legs?
I marvel at thee, Octopus;
If I were thou, I'd call me Us.
Ogden Nash link
When I became a Christian at the age of 17, I entered a larger community known as the Jesus movement. We hung out in Christian coffee houses, "grooved" to Christian folk music (Larry Norman, dude!) and heard understated speakers who movingly spoke about a loving Creator. It was that love that drew me in deeper.
As I traveled the Christian scene, I was amazed at the numbers of people who were becoming Christians. Many, like myself, grew up in non-Christian homes. Filled with enthusiasm, we started Bible studies and reached out to our friends and co-workers who were also intrigued by our new found faith. Much of this was done outside of the church "establishment."
When we finally made our way to churches, we found pastors who were thrilled by the presence of many new Christians. They encouraged our faith by thoughtful sermons. They sponsored Bible studies in which the average member could have as much input as the leader. Back in those days, the pastors were our cheering squads, praying for us as we reached out to our neighbors and friends, providing us with resources to help us articulate the faith while praying for us. They were willing to show up at pot lucks and gatherings to lovingly spread the Good News.
Times have changed…
Two weeks ago, we did a post in which we quoted from The Fall of the Evangelical Nation: The Surprising Crisis Within the Church by Christian Wicker link
Evangelical Christianity in America is dying. The great evangelical movements of today are not a vanguard. They are a remnant, unraveling at every edge. Conversions. Baptisms. Membership. Retention. Participation. Giving. Attendance. Impact upon the culture at large. All are down and dropping.
Everywhere Wicker traveled she heard whispers of diminishing statistics, failed campaigns, and empty churches. Even as evangelical forces trumpet their purported political and social victories on the national and local fronts, insiders are anguishing over their significant losses and preparing to rebuild for the future. The idea that evangelicals represent and speak for Christianity in America is one of the greatest publicity scams in history, a perfect coup accomplished by savvy politicos and zealous religious leaders who understand the weaknesses of the nation's media and exploit them brilliantly.
You may say that your local megachurch is growing. Is it really? In that post, we also noted the following trend:
Mega churches primarily grow by:
- Transfer from other churches.
- Baptisms of the children of church members.
We are not growing, merely consolidating. TWW is also looking at church plants. We are of the opinion that many of these plants do not survive, especially if they do not have a "charismatic" pastor to draw the folks in from other churches. Because that is what it takes today.You must get people to change churches, since "conversions" seem to be on the decline. Why?
Pastorcentric leadership, gender roles and church discipline are prioritized over the spread of the Gospel message.
Recently I met some very nice folks from up north who told me about their church. They remarked on their gifted and well-known pastor and assured us that their church practiced "church discipline." All this in about 2 sentences. They went on to tell us about their remarkable "growth." I asked how many attendees were new to the faith. I received a blank stare and then reassurances about the "quality" of teaching.
Cruise the blogosphere which is filled with representatives of the Neo-Calvinist movement. Look at 9 Marks, The Gospel Coalition, T4G, John Piper, Al Mohler, Ligon Duncan, etc. Read their posts. How many of them deal with authority, leadership, gender roles, and discipline? The number of posts and sermons are overwhelming. See our post from yesterday in which Wade Burleson speaks to the hierarchical framework of the Reformed movement.
Head on over to Calvary Chapel, FBC Dallas, FBC Jacksonville, Bellevue Baptist Church, which list towards the "touch not the Lord's anointed" version of Arminianism.
I recently heard a Reformed pastor who announced that, as he assumed the pastorate, he had left the congregation and joined the ranks of the shepherds. In other words, he is separate and "different." There is a two part series: Pastors Need Your Care at Kevin DeYoung's blog (written by Jason Helopoulos) which we will discuss more in depth next week. However, take a look at this quote from Part 2 link. The list gives us some insights into the priorities of a pastor.
Ensure that the congregation understands his main tasks are prayer, study, and preaching. Most individuals in the church will have different expectations. If that is the case–change them.
Regularly encourage him that you value the time he spends praying, studying, and preaching–ask for fewer policies, spreadsheets, and even visitations.
Visitations are in the same category as spreadsheets? Good night! Something is terribly wrong. People and numbers are equally problematic?
Meanwhile, as membership in the church declines, the leaders have decided that the number one priority, after pastors and discipline, is "complementarianism." For all of the organizations, posts and sermons dedicated to this topic, it seems to boil down to:
- Women can't be pastors or elders
- Married men get the tie breaking vote.
For most of the world, this is a major yawner. Come to Christ and we will show you how to be a real woman. Come to Christ and we will show you how real men delete critical comments and deep six "statements."
Towards membercentric churches:
I believe that one of the main factors in the decline in church membership and attendance, as well as a diminishing number of those who self identify as Christians, is a changing perspective on who is most important in reaching a dying world.
The octopus will help me demonstrate my point link. The octopus has a central head and a well developed nervous system. In fact, it is considered one of the most intelligent of the invertebrates. It has an intricate circulatory system with three hearts. It also has 8 arms or tentacles. The octopus uses it tentacles to catch the food and navigate the ocean. It sends signals to the brain when predators are present. Imagine an octopus minus the tentacles. It would be one big blob, utterly helpless and unable to survive, no matter how "intelligent" it is.
The head of the church, like the head of the octopus, is Jesus Christ and the tentacles are the members of the church.The pastor is like the heart and circulatory system, making sure that the tentacles are strong and able to fulfill their function. Without the tentacles, the octopus would be dead in the water, unable to walk or to capture food. For some reason, Jesus has decided to let us be His tentacles to reach the world.
I believe our churches are dead in the water because the priorities are screwed up. The tentacles have been turned inwards and the focus is on the pastor. The pastor is unable to go out into the community and spread the Gospel. He must rely on the members to do this but he ties them up, taking care of "vision" of the pastor.
The members of the church (I do include those who are not members of a particular church but members of the church universal) are the ones who can more clearly define the mission and priorities of the church because they are out there exploring world. Those tentacles need the heart of the the pastor, who is pumping his fists in the air, saying "Go for it." In fact, some pastors, instead of having three hearts like the octopus, appear to have hearts that are "three sizes too small."
Over the next week, I am going to look at how the members have been marginalized and diminished in their roles, while the pastor has been elevated to a job that he is not meant to do. He is not there, contrary to Helopoulos, to just prepare sermons, pray and preach. He is like the pit stop in a NASCAR race. The car pulls in, battered and in need of care. It is tuned up, given gas and pushed back out into the race. One can usually see the pit crew giving the car and driver a loving "Atta boy" pat. Pastors need to be more like that pit stop crew.
Does that mean that the pastor never reaches outside of the church? Of course not. But that is not what he most routinely does in his day to day life.
We spend a lot of time studying the apostles. We are told to be like Paul. But, there is a problem. Paul was not writing those letter so that the early church members would become apostles like Paul. He wrote them to give the early church, weary and persecuted, a shot in the arm. He was their biggest supporter. He loved them and warned them about some pitfalls in the race. He focused on the Cross and Resurrection and encouraged them to "carry on." And when they fell, he told them that they were forgiven and dearly loved.
Never forget that it was not Paul who changed the world. It was transformed by the Spirit of Christ, residing in the lives of thousands of nameless loving and committed Christians. I look forward to meeting them one day.
More to come next week…
Lydia's Corner: 2 Kings 6:1-7:20 Acts 15:36-16:15 Psalm 142:1-7 Proverbs 17:24-25
I cringed at your using an octopus as the example of the Church.
It makes for a great example of the mega-church, however – reaching out its tentacles into the smaller outlying churches, sucking in their members and young people into its mouth.
Just read the excited utterings of the church “planters” that are “sent out” from these mega-churches. Almost invariably, the new plants are in upper middle-class communities that already have a plethora of existing churches in the area: Orange County, Atlanta, Louisville, and so on. Large numbers showing up from day one to experience the “new work God is bringing forth in our midst!” when in reality, these numbers are just members and attenders of other churches who are forever looking for the next “move of God” more exciting than the one they left – just like when people stop shopping at their local grocers and hardware stores when the new Walmart opens on the edge of town.
Question:
Is the pastor as we knew it outdated?
In the past, it was the pastor who studied, who deciphered, who taught. The person of wisdom, the guiding light. In the past it was hard to gather this information…
People take this for granted, but we live in the internet era.
We are all literally connected to pretty much the sum total humanity’s current knowledge, 24/7, and to new knowledge as it appears and is added to the whole. We can talk to and debate with anyone, anywhere in the world, of any point of view (save for those that involve cutting themselves off from it) on a whim and immediately. Knowledge is commoditized, and is no longer hard to come by. The skill lies not in gathering knowledge, but analyzing it.
This is truly amazing, and changes everything about humanity. It’s funny it only took a short couple of decades for it to become mundane and taken for granted.
We don’t need a pastor to read us bible passages anymore. We all can read, and we have most every bible translation in most every language available freely and immediately though places like Bible Gateway.
We don’t need a pastor to tell us “what the bible says”. There are millions of Christians (and non Christians) interacting and debating every possible point of theology daily and in public. Everyone from all walks of the life: office workers, professional historians of all eras, scientists of all fields, atheists, agnostics, pastors, burger flippers, taxi drivers, philosophers, artists… everybody. In force.
No man can get up on a Sunday morning and match that. Not even if he locked himself in a room alone and studied every book ever written for a thousand years.
No, the man can only get up on a Sunday morning, and contribute… something. A tiny piece of a puzzle. A tiny piece, just like all the others do every day. The only difference is that all the others don’t get paid to do it.
And so we return to the original question:
What is the purpose of a pastor now?
Or perhaps the question should be:
What purpose does a pastor have left? Why does the pastor even matter?
Quick add:
I disagree with your point that the pastor is the heart and circulatory system and the rest of us are just tentacles kept alive by them.
We are the heart. And the circulatory system. And the tentacles. And the cells. and the atoms. We being, every Christian.
(Also, no offense meant to pastors reading this.)
JustSomeGuy wrote:
The example of the octopus is not perfect by any means. Of course we all have the heart of Christ in us.As well as His mind. I am trying to outline the difference in functions. As the church stands at this time, the pastor is seen as the draw to the church, the evangelist, the teacher, the visionary, the everything.
I am trying, not well obviously, to show that the tentacles are the ones out in the world, feeling, seeing, bringing in, touching…
I see the pastor as the cheering squad, the pit stop, the one who helps us on our way in the world.
JustSomeGuy wrote:
I agree. I believe that the pastor is our ally in our outreach to the world.
Anon wrote:
I am not looking it as the Giant Octopus in Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea-LLoyd bridges, et al.
The tentacles are far more than a choke and destroy to feed the octopus. They are how it reaches out to the world.
If you have been reading this blog for awhile, you will know that I am not into a grab and such them in approach. I was looking for a living entity that shows a central head(Jesus) and the body to engage to world.
I am afraid of spiders so I knew that wouldn’t work. Perhaps you have a better living animal, etc. that might work?
Anon wrote:
I totally agree with you. That is part of the theme for this post. It is merely people being moved around on a checkerboard. The numbers are set and the game begins.
dee wrote:
I see the pastor as the cheering squad, the pit stop, the one who helps us on our way in the world.
That seems to be the point we are differing on, I see all Christians as that.
I mean, look at this blog… those exact things are what we are and what we do with each other. We may not have a physical relationship and most of us don’t even know each other’s real names, much less faces.
But yet that is still the essence what we do here, every day.
Dee,
I believe your illustration has much merit. Each of us must reach out to fulfill the Great Commission. That’s one of the reasons TWW exists.
Dee,
I don’t disagree with your overall direction here, but I think there is certainly Biblical warrant for a position that focuses on study, prayer, and teaching. The whole reason the role of “Deacon” was created was to allow the early Apostles to devote themselves to those tasks while others handed meeting people’s physical needs.
Now you can argue that that wasn’t a pattern to be followed, but it is certainly not unprecedented to view ministering to individuals and study as different roles performed by different individuals (note that the Deacons did, in fact preach, or at least Stephen did).
So the question is, where do you (or me, or anyone) get the duties of the “pastor” role from?
I wonder, does RC Sproul consider himself a “pastor”? Every time I hear him give his role, it’s “teaching elder” and he’s said before that a condition of taking the position was that his only duty would be to teach. So in general I think he does not do visitations outside of what any normal Christian in the church would do. I have no directly knowledge of this, just what he’s said in his sermons.
I don’t see any problem with this.
1. Sheep Rustling.
2. Bedroom Evangelism/Outbreed the Other.
Clericalism. The Clergy is Everything, the Laity is Nothing. The Clergy are Godly, the Laity pray, PAY, and OBEY.
Remind me again why all you Protestants left Romish Popery and their Ungodly Heirarchy of Clerical Aristocrats lording it over the Sinful Commoners?
MALE SUPREMACY. “ME MAN! WOMAN, SUBMIT!”
And have you ever noticed so many of these Male Supremacist Pastor/Dictators are five-foot-two, 100 pounds wringing wet, with whiny voices?
Anon wrote:
Rich guys’ communities. Where the Tithe money i$.
Jeff S wrote:
Yes…that’s the question!
Dee, I like your analogy. Actually, I think that I will call it “The Parable of the Octopus.” And I don’t think analyzing or checking theology is the way to understand a parable. I love the image of an octopus without tentacles being tossed about. But what occurred to me is that the same thing would happen if the octopus managed to get tangled
http://doodles.s3.amazonaws.com/d2/510XzAn9X/1exfqNUlB.png which is what would happen if the head didn’t do its job.
Or what if the tentacles were all stroking the head instead of locomoting and catching food?
JustSomeGuy wrote:
I think you are on to what is happening. Problem is the church building is also a social scene for many people and they are loathe to leave it.
Another problem is that it is almost impossible to gather good stats on what is really going on whether it is membership, attendance (two different things but crucial for megas) and those who are believers in no organized church. Some of the megas I used to consult with are STILL publishing numbers from 1990’s and are no where near that mass now.
Church plants are a joke in places like the SBC. They have this huge vision to plant a ton of Reformed churches but they are planting them in upscale areas where there is a church on every corner. EVen the church planting guru Setzer has had several church plant fails but gets a high paying job telling everyone how to do it.
You have to be discerning with the “church plant” verbiage. I saw Setzer introduce one mega church pastor as a “church planter” when I knew for a fact his church plants were satellite start ups funded by a wealthy mega where he is downlinked for sermons. Does not count.
Much of it is smoke and mirrors but keep sending money!
Jeff S wrote:
I saw this distinction all the time in the mega world. It was for a reason. The senior pastor did not want to do visitations and this was the way to say, I only “teach”. You want me studying not visiting. Problem was, they were also busy doing conferences for lots of extra money they did not need. It was more of a way to separate themselves from the pew sitters. I have a huge problem with it. There is no relationship with the one teaching and that becomes a problem. he gets to be on a pedestal. Cult of personality becomes the norm in that sort of situation over time. We see it with Sproul, too. And everyone has conveniently forgotton about the Ligonier financial scandal which made USA Today and the Orlando Sentinel.
@ dee: I think you might need to underline the fact that “pastors” are seen this way in a certain sector of american evangelicalism – for a lot of churches, what you’re saying is pretty much irrelevant. (Not saying people in pastoral roles are unimportant; rather, that many of us come from churches where the congregation as a whole decides on hires and there is no dictatorship – though that can conceivably occur, the congregation can also vote someone out of a job.)
Just saying…
@ Anon 1:
I have not forgotten about the Ligonier scandal. From what I’ve seen, I don’t know how involved Sr. was in that. However, I do not support Ligonier financially because I don’t trust the organization. And quite honestly, I’ve stopped listening to Sproul Sr as well. But I don’t think any of that makes his point invalid.
The scripture clearly sets up a situation where teachers and students of theology intentionally put others into roles designed to minister to physical needs of people. Now, as Christians we are ALL called to minister and interact with others. The pastor should NOT be separate from the body. But to say that it is categorically wrong to have a position dedicated to teaching and theological study would be to make the Apostles actions in creating the office of deacon an error.
I agree that many pastors set themselves up in a special class and that is not right. But I don’t think it is wrong to have some folks whose primary focus is teaching and study.
As an example, when I left my church during my divorce, I contacted the pastor at a local PCA church. I explained him the situation and he listened. He offered to meet with me and understand the situation. He showed a great deal of concern and empathy. However, he also informed me that he was not a good counselor, though he’d studied in seminary he knew that it was not where his talents lay. It was not his calling. He put me in touch with other elders of the church who faithfully met with me and helped me through a very difficult situation. I did not feel cast off or pushed aside by that pastor, and if I ever approached him he made time for me. At the same time, he clearly recognized where his strengths (and the strengths of others) were and utilized them accordingly. His strengths were in teaching and study, and that was his focus. It did not cause him to separated himself, but it did prompt him to get me to some people better able to help when it was safe to do so.
As an aside, I was VERY blessed by the way that church handled things. I was coming out of a very dark situation with no ability to trust anyone. They did not push me to join the church (in fact, they told me I should not even think about it in my current state). They did not push me to get involved or do anything. In fact, they said “you tell us how we can support you right now” and they followed through on that. I told them I was in a rough spot and mostly wanted to be left alone. So they did.
It turns out that when I finally was ready to start getting engaged, circumstances physically located me across town so I ended up joining a different church altogether. That was the church I’m at now where I could get engaged. It’s interesting to see the different nature of the two churches and how perfectly they met my needs. The other church was my transition into safety- this one has pushed me toward closer relationships. And the pastors couldn’t be more different in their gifts. The pastor at my current church will personally contact every single person who ever visits (if he can get enough info) to meet them for coffee, or whatever. He engages people and is gifted that way. He’s one to give counsel (and he was also one who heard my story and was able to name things properly when it came to the emotional abuse).
I think both men are fine pastors and they know their limitations. I do not begrudge the first pastor for not being someone who makes a lot of contact. He certainly did what he should have done as a Christian brother, but he had others to do what he was not skilled at. That seems wise to me.
Jeff S wrote:
Hmm… while I agree with your statement insofar as it goes, i do not believe that teaching and theological study are the main goal of pastoral ministry. At least, in my denom, they are not… a lot of the work is about visiting the sick and needy (physically, emotionally, spiritually) and counseling – but the latter is always within certain bounds, and the pastors I’ve known would not hesitate to refer folks to mental health professionals. (As an aside, ministers in my denom have “pastor” as a formal title, but only after many years of education and when working in day-to-day parish ministry.)
We have a friend who is of the belief that church elders were never meant to be a career like we think of them. He thinks the elders of a church, in NT times, were believers who had earned the respect of people around them. They weren’t hired or voted on. They were the people whose wisdom was sought out when people had problems. (I imagine this was actually similar to the elders in ancient cities, only with more theology involved.)
If this view is even close to correct, then the way most churches select elders is completely wrong. They should be growing them from within the congregation by noticing who is already doing the work of a wise, loving shepherd, without doing it for pay or to be noticed. These people may not look like what churches currently expect. I imagine a lot of empty-nest women that devote much of their time to serving others would fit the bill better than those who might turn out to be merely “hirelings.”
@ numo:
I don’t know that it makes sense to draw a direct line between the office of “pastor” and the first century Apostles. So I’m not saying ALL pastors should be study/teaching focused. I’m just saying there is precedent for some people to have this role.
HoppyTheToad wrote:
Well I don’t know how other churches do it, but this is exactly how our elders were selected. I assume it’s the same at most other PCA churches as well.
Does the PCA keep its elders in place? I know the UMC rotates most pastors to a new church every three years. So I guess church members are supposed to trust the denomination to choose people who meet all the requirements of being an elder.
@ HoppyTheToad:
I’ll confess I don’t know all about how the PCA does it, but we don’t rotate pastors. The pastor answers to the elders, though.
I believe the PCA examines the elders, but they are nominated by the church and come from within. And they can definitely fire the pastor if they want.
Jeff S wrote:
I see a great deal of problem with people who would consider me “barely a Christian” because I don’t tip his way. Because of this, I have a hard time trusting anything that he says. And I would not want him visiting me when I was sick. So, in his case, I think it is wise that he does no visitation.
He also tips pastor centric (or eldercentric) so he is not a great example for what i am trying to get across.
Jeff S wrote:
Jeff S — What a blessing.
Jeff S wrote:
Are you saying that they are chosen by the congregation in the sense that the congregation nominates them? Or is the elder slate made up by the elders and presented to the congregation for a vote? The latter is a process that I believe is seriously flawed.
Jeff S wrote:
You mean as the founder/leader who does not know what is going on in his own non profit? Even if what you say is true, he obviously knew about the it enough to file a lawsuit against a blogger! You might want to check out Navigator as his name is there as a founder/officer along with his wife and son in law as officers during that time.
“The scripture clearly sets up a situation where teachers and students of theology intentionally put others into roles designed to minister to physical needs of people. Now, as Christians we are ALL called to minister and interact with others. The pastor should NOT be separate from the body. But to say that it is categorically wrong to have a position dedicated to teaching and theological study would be to make the Apostles actions in creating the office of deacon an error.”
The irony is that pastor is mentioned once and as a spiritual gift in scripture. We have made it an “office” which is never in the Greek, it was added by translators laboring under a church/state mentality. It is a function and a gifting. Not a position. If we want to be technical, Eph lists pastors AND teachers…seemingly they are not the same thing. But all believers are called to all the “one another’s” and I don’t think having a spiritual gifting negates all that. There is no clergy/laity divide in the NT. The word laity is never used for the Body as all believers are “ministers” and have anointing.
HoppyTheToad wrote:
Exactly! They would look like losers to most folks simply because they would be the spiritually mature who are not looking for influence or recognition. If you notice, in many churches there are “elders” without the title as folks tend to gravitate toward them for their spiritual wisdom and humility.
Does anyone else think this is interesting?
Christianity Today’s blog “Out of Ur” has a weekly Friday interview — and for the past 3 months their Friday Five Interviews have highlighted several Gospel Coalition friends of C.J. Mahaney.
Interviews:
April 5 – D.A. Carson – Gospel Coalition council member and signer of the statement to support child sexual abuse/cover up lawsuit defendant C.J. Mahaney.
May 10 – Russell Moore – Gospel Coalition contributor, former dean of SBTS under Al Mohler, a Gospel Coaltition Counsel member. He was part of a 4-person panel discussion including Mahaney in August 2012, after Mahaney took a took a leave of absence in July 2011 for a “season of examination and evaluation” of charges against him by alienated SGM pastors, including “various expressions of pride, unentreatability, deceit, sinful judgment and hypocrisy.”
May 24 – Josh Harris – Gospel Coalition council member and hand-picked pastor/successor of child sexual abuse/cover up lawsuit defendant C.J. Mahaney.
June 7 – Kevin DeYoung – Gospel Coalition council member and signer of the statement to support child sexual abuse/cover up lawsuit defendant C.J. Mahaney.
June 21 – Phil Ryken – Gospel Coalition council member who is silent about C.J. Mahaney but called him “our friend” a couple years ago. Mahaney is a Council Member for the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals along with Ryken.
July 5 – Owen Strachen – Gospel Coalition contributor, former assistant to the President at SBTS (Al Mohler), and head of CBMW where C.J. Mahaney is a council member. http://cbmw.org/council-members-2/
Coincidence?
Re: My comment above.
http://www.outofur.com/archives/2013/07/friday_five_int_11.html
Janey, not a coincidence at all. They have been strategizing how to take over many places/groups for the last 10 years. Quiet Revolution by Ernest Reisinger paved the way for the strategy. They had patience and the ability to indoctrinate many young men using other peoples money– who had no clue. They have just about taken over every single SBC entity by planting their people in them and all the Baptist organizations in my state. There are a few holdouts holding by their fingernails.
I predict this YRR movement is going to create a lot of future atheist.
Anon 1 wrote:
Anon 1 — I suspect you are right. YRR pastors will answer to the Lord. I warn my 20-something Christian friends that no matter how attractive legalistic groups are in the early stages, to be prepared to get out. The shine wears off eventually.
@ Jeff S: Oh hey, I am *not* a “we have to do it like they did Back Then” type at all – kinda otherwise. We’ve got what we’ve got as far as denominational structures and administrative jobs… I guess that coming from another kind of tradition (Lutheran), I see things a little differently, that’s all. (Including the bit about Lutheran pastors using “pastor” rather than “reverend,” etc.)
@ HoppyTheToad: Are you using the terms elder and pastor interchangeably?
I’m a bit confused, because the ministers in UM congregations are ordained, though you’re right, they’re switched frequently.
In my denom (Lutheran – ELCA), the congregation votes on candidates, and unless there is a problem (or people feel called to move elsewhere), ministers/pastors are usually settled for many years. (Congregation can vote them out, too.)
@ numo: in other words, candidates apply, but the congregation gets to decide on hiring. Pastors aren’t appointed from on high.
dee wrote:
Yeah, I probably should have left him out of the discussion.
Anon 1 wrote:
Well, the sense I’ve gotten is that he must be very ignorant as to a lot of the goings ons. Perhaps I am overly charitable in his case because his teaching have so profoundly influenced me for a LONG time, but I just cannot see how what he preaches lines up with allowing his son to be involved with his ministry at all. Yet I DO understand people making bad choices when it comes to family- it’s a common blind spot.
When I hear Sr speak and preach, he has such a passion for philosophy and theology. It seems like he is so focused on that (and his description of his role as a “teaching elder” re-enforces this) that the other “details” of his ministry get overlooked.
But maybe this is all me just having difficulty letting go. As I’ve said, I don’t think there is any teacher I’ve listened to or read anywhere close to as much as Sproul Sr, and it was listening to his sermons post-divorce that really encouraged me not to let go of my faith- that there WERE answers and hope in Jesus, even when the church had crushed my spirit.
And yet, I’ve stopped listening to his podcasts recently. It makes me sad.
dee wrote:
The former. Because my church JUST went through the process of choosing its initial elders, I got to see this firsthand. We wrote down nominations that were turned into a list to be prayed over. The nominations were to come from people already operating within the body. We were encouraged to get to know the candidates and ask questions. The PCA then examined these candidates, and after they approved the congregation voted.
As best as I can remember it, that was the process. And the people chosen were no surprise, as with a congregation that size you pretty much knew who fit the role ahead of time. The only surprise were a few folks that you would have expected to be nominated that were not there. The pastor did not name names, but he did say that a few folks that we would have expected to be on the list declined the nomination.
It’s true that in the ELCA the congregation selects the pastor. But in most cases, the only candidates from whom to choose are those supplied by the synodical bishop. So there is some degree of hierarchical control.
numo wrote:
I agree and that is why I used “some.” I have been blessed to be in 4 churches that did not do things this way. Then I was in a couple that do.
Jeff S wrote:
They are in seminaries. The question is whether the average pastor in a church should view his role in the same way.
Jeff S wrote:
I am heartened to hear that. That is not how most authoritarian churches do it.
I was in a church that claimed to ask for nominations from the members. However, not one of those nominations, ever, we vetted. Only the ones offered by the elders we on the final slate.
littleunky wrote:
It is far less control in the ELCA than in some of the authoritarian churches in evangelicalism. I believe that Chaplain Mike of the Internet Monk, who I deeply respect, was ordained in the ELCA.
Octopi and NASCAR, two of my favorite things in the world in one TWW post! Bravo!
dee wrote:
I understand that. However our congregation is closing in on a year without a permanent pastor and with only one candidate from our synod thus far. When we inquired about going outside the synod to seek candidates we were confronted with what amounted to a threat from our bishop. Not a flat no, but a warning of dire consequences.
dee wrote:
Dee,
Can you elaborate on what happened here? I am curious. Was it that the congregation nominated different men entirely than the elders did and only those the elders nominated got on the slate? As in, had the congregation’s nominations been considered the slate would have looked entirely different? That is what I’m understanding happened here.
I’d also like to know if the men the congregation nominated essentially represented a different philosophy, of sorts. Like, if they were men who were more of an all men as created equal view, where the elders’ men would see some as more equal than others. If you see what I mean.
@ JustSomeGuy:
This is an excellent thought, sure to ruffle feathers. But I too am becoming more and more convinced that “professional pastor” is becoming irrelevant. I submit that this is why you are such heavy gnostic emphasis in the Christian church today. They need you to believe that they hold some special divine knowledge that you are not privy to. That they are “in the stead of God”.
Of course, the benifits of this is that they may claim to rule you. To own you. To possess a divine mandate to compel you by hook or crook (and a lot of depravity guilt).
They are the modern version of the plato’s philosopher king.
I’ve met morality in the faces of everyday Christians that would wilt “elders” where they stand.
I meant “there is such heavy emphasis”…weird.
@ littleunky: Oh no! Live and learn! This sort of thing might make for a good post. Any thoughts?
formerly anonymous wrote:
I think, in this instance, that the congregationally suggested elders would have not marched lockstep with the “plan.” There was definitely a bias towards those who Reformed in thinking.
However, the church has not been traditionally Reformed. So, it would seem that the elders should reflect the diversity of theological thinking within the congregation.
I hasten to add that the church was conservative in regards to the essentials of the faith and was complementarian in leadership. in other words, we are not talking radical here.
It was really sad to me since this was a church that for years had successfully transcended secondary issues.
dee wrote:
That’s basically what I was wondering. That would indeed make the whole thing a farce or fraud. It would also suggest, at least to me, an intention to perform a take over by degrees while showing superficial deference to the existing protocol until that was no longer necessary.
@ formerly anonymous:
I meant to only copy Dee’s first sentence as not all who identify Reformed would do something like this and some who don’t certainly would.
Anon 1 wrote:
Anon 1 — When you say “other people’s money,” which organizations would you identify as the biggest funders for the YRR and neo-Calvinist causes.
dee wrote:
The octopus analogy at the top of the page (which didn’t bother me, I think people can be over-analytical about these things, instead of trying to grasp the overall point being made) had me in such an oceanic frame of mind, I first read that comment as,
“I see the pastor as the cheering squid…”
-cheering squid. 🙂
I thought you were going for a sea worthy pun. I had to re-read it to see that it said “squad.”
For insensitive preachers, can we say they’re like eye patch wearing pirates who make disgruntled church members or people who won’t officially join their church (by signing a legal document) walk the plank?
(I’ll stop there, because believe me, once I get on a theme, I can go on and on. In which case, you would want to keel haul me. yuk yuk.) 😆
This:
Reminded me of this:
Grinch’s Heart
The octopus comparison sort of reminds me of Paul’s discussion about how all believers are valuable and have a purpose, about how ‘the hand can’t say to the foot I don’t need you.’
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
That is more Old Testament. Jesus tossed out the familial stuff in the New Testament to a degree.
Jesus said his kingdom would be spread by sharing his story with those who are non-believers, not by those who already believe carrying on the faith by having their own kids and raising them to be believers.
What we see in some groups (Quiverfull, Reconstructionists, Mormonism, and now that’s leaking in a bit into mainstream conservative Christainity) really resembles pagan fertility cults or family ancestor worship.
So, if you’re not married and/or do not have children, you’re very much left feeling left out of certain religious communities. Jesus wanted the opposite of that situation, because the cultures of his day did the same thing – you had no worth or place in culture unless you were married with children.
Jesus was trying to rectify that. Conservative Christians, though, want to re-establish that and thus un-do what Jesus was trying to accomplish.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
It seems to me that Roman Catholicism was wanting to return to Old Testament Levite priesthood (putting a mediator between God and man), when Jesus is supposed to be the only High Priest, with each believer a priest.
Some Protestant denominations appear to be doing the same thing, either with controlling preachers, and some of them, IMO, have made a Pope out of guys such as John Calvin, making Calvin, or his views on theology, come between God and people.
I don’t know why people who profess to believe in Christ want to keep erecting a wedge between God and every one (like was in place with the Levite priesthood with the Temple), when Christ knocked that veil / wall down.
@ littleunky: Bishops are mainly admin people these days, though – here, at least. I realize that others’ mileage may vary.
@ littleunky: I’m sorry to hear that. It’s not right at all!
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
That and this (from the original post)…
IMO, never-married women are at the very bottom of the rung in many churches (and other sorts of unmarried women, such as the divorced are about near there), but single men (never- married, divorced, widowers) also face bias in many churches, but they seem to be a smidge above the single women.
In my course of chatting with other older, single adults online, I’ve heard from some never-married men in their mid 30s, 40s, and older who mention that churches won’t allow them to serve much, if at all.
Some churches will, though – because churches who believe in gender complementarianism aren’t usually as restrictive with males as they are females, regardless of marital status – but some churches have a prejudice against single adult men.
Churches will not allow an unmarried man to work as a preacher, Sunday school teacher, or in other roles.
One older, never married guy was telling me that some churches (I think he was Southern Baptist) don’t even mention singles in their written documentation – they go on about how and when a married man can serve, but do not even acknowledge singles at all.
Some Christians / denominations are very transparent about their anti-single prejudice and don’t even try to hide it.
I believe Al Mohler flat out said in some interview in NY Times something like he does not think single men are fit to preach/lead in church, only married guys are.
I wrote before of a story I read in a book about why people stop going to church, and the story was about a married man who worked as a preacher for many years, but when his wife died, his church made him step down permanently.
They refused to allow an unmarried guy be preacher, even though it was the same guy who had been their preacher for 20 or more years, while married. They would not allow him to so much as teach Sunday School for singles. He could not get other churches to hire him after his wife died.
One reason churches do this is that they are cheapskates: they figure a wife of a preacher will work in the church for free. They get two employees for the price of one.
I’ve seen some church officials say in articles or books they are afraid an un-married preacher guy will get into sexual shenanigans with all the church women.
Oh please, as if we never, ever hear stories of married preachers who have affairs, have pr0n addictions, etc. (Ted Haggard, Jim Bakker, Swaggert, Jack Schapp)??
Headless Unicorn Guy said,
Occasionally the gender complementarian guys are 300 pounds, sweaty, with bombastic, yelling voices (John Hagee comes to mind).
My post right above this one is in moderation queue.
The flip side of the story I put in my post above (about the married preacher who was forced to resign by his church once he became single, because his wife died):
I have seen widows online (or stories about them in books about low church attendance) say that up until their husband died, every one at their church of ten, twenty or more years, treated them real friendly.
These widows say when their spouse was alive, they and their spouse would get invited out by other married church couples for lunches and other social events/ gatherings.
After their husband dies, they instantly become persona non grata with their church family.
The widows become ignored, no more dinner dates from church family (who used to invite them out all the time or chat with them regularly), they have to sit alone during services, etc.
People treat them as though they are an entirely different person, based on their change of marital status alone.
On the topic of the role of a preacher.
I’m somewhat sympathetic to a preacher devoting some of his work week to study and preparing sermons.
In a book I read about why people leave church, there is a chapter about preachers and preaching.
The author interviewed preachers who explained one reason some people are leaving churches is that they are not being “fed,” because most sermons these days are stupid and shallow.
One reason sermons are stupid and shallow, they explained, is that some preachers get lazy. It takes real time, study, and effort to do research during the week, looking up info, etc.
They said some preachers get lazy and skip all that effort and use freebie pastor sermon sites, such as Rick Warren’s “pastor.com” or “sermons.com” (or whatever it is).
Either one of those preachers or another interviewed did say that preachers need to be active in the lives of the church members, though (such as visiting the sick and so on).
One lady in the book (divorced with kids) said even though her church knew she was going in for surgery, not a single soul, not the preacher or anyone, stopped to see her at the hospital for the few days she was in there after surgery. No cards, no flowers, nothing.
She said she had been going to that church for several years and was quite involved, too. She had joined and showed up for many of their social functions and ministries and what all, trying to not just “serve” but to make friends there, but it did not work.
She was terribly hurt that the preacher from her church, or none of the other members, showed up or sent a card.
@ formerly anonymous:
Your comment reminded me of something Mark Dever said when he recently preached at Mahaney’s church…well, I take that back. I don’t know how to refer to Mahaney’s gathering because Dever actually said at the beginning of his talk that it was NOT yet a church because they didn’t have “members” (no “membership” classes had been initiated yet). After that insult, Dever said something interesting starting at the 19 min mark going until the 22 min mark.
Nutshell- my take, and I listened to it 3 times, was that Dever thinks it is wise to not state your Calvinist beliefs up front when applying for a pastor job in a non-Calvinist leaning church. Reason for this secrecy? Because Jesus healed a leper and told him not to tell anyone, along with other passages regarding Jesus keeping aspects of His ministry secret.
I do not agree with Dever. I wonder if he is teaching men that it is ok to be secret about their Calvinist beliefs in order to secure a job?
http://cpmassets.com/video.php?video=322&site=792
A thought . . .
If the portion of scripture that calls for setting aside deacons to minister to the needs of the Church was to free up the Apostles for prayer and study, and if most churches today don’t recognize Apostles (although some do), then how does that scripture apply in todays churches? It seems to me that the men needing “freeing up” were the men who were setting the foundation of the church, praying, studying, and actually traveling to new cities to spread the gospel and start new bodies of believers. I’m also a bit confused as to what they were studying (Tora I presume) since there was no new testament to study as yet.
Bridget wrote:
Protestant Pastor/Elder equals Modern Day Successor Of/Replacement For Apostles, who went the way of dinosaurs.
@ Dave A A:
So if Protestants don’t believe in Apostles for today, why would they apply that scripture to pastor/elders in their churches today? Pastor/elder today is not the same function as the Apostles of old. Maybe we are seeing “Pastor/elder with benefits” ?
@ Bridget:
Here’s how it worked in former Acts 29/Marks 9 church plant. Pastor/Elders decided they needed more time for prayer/study (and writing books). One P/E announced the need for deacons and a slate of names. Members were encouraged to pray and to go to the P/E’s with any pros or cons about the candidates. P/E taught about Acts 6, assuming that P/E’s are equivalent to the 12 and deacons to the 7. Deacons are to help P/E’s in the “table” service to free P/E’s up for “Word” service. Next Sunday, another P/E announced we (they) would be installing the deacons in 2 weeks, and asked us to go to the P/E’s with any ways e candidates had been a blessing to us. Apostle Dave became Appalled for several reasons, and spoke rather hastily to a P/E after the service.
1: I barely had time to pray about this, and likely many members hadn’t had time to either, nor to bring up any cons about the candidates.
2: We were given the idea that we would have real have real input, when everything was already decided and quickly implemented.
3: The 7 in Acts 6 were needed to serve PEOPLE, as in the neglected widows.
4: The 12 asked the church to “choose for yourselves” the 7, who the 12 then installed– not the reverse. I was told that the p/e’s knew everyone better, and thus were in the better position to choose.
Shortly after the deacons were installed, the whole membership was asked to vote– on the location of our annual Reformation Day event. It was the only vote we ever made while I was there.
FYI I believe the 12 and the 7 were unique, but apostles and deacons, like elders, bishops, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers are for today. I would put all those “equipping” gifts at the heart of the octopus for the equipping of all the tentacles for the work of ministry.
@ Bridget:
Good questions. Just like Catholic priests maybe? BTW I see current day apostles (small a) as being the same as missionaries rather than special authority figures.
@ Diane:
Oh…my….
I don’t know what his reasons might be but that is not a right dividing of Scripture…. 😯
First he quotes some author who said, “While all deception requires secrecy, all secrecy is not meant to deceive.” Then he says Jesus wasn’t trying to deceive by His secrecy, which, of course is true. Then he says, “You don’t always say everything you know if you are trying to teach somebody.” Well now, any good teacher knows what you share depends on what the student can handle. It is for the student, not the teacher, to not say everything he knows. And then he goes into his ordination as if that were the same thing as either of the two preceding scenarios.
What Dever does here is cloak deliberate misrepresentation of himself under the guise of guilelessness.
And by the way, cults do exactly the same thing. They keep critical information from the prospective recruit until later.
Daisy wrote:
One lady in the book (divorced with kids) said even though her church knew she was going in for surgery, not a single soul, not the preacher or anyone, stopped to see her at the hospital for the few days she was in there after surgery. No cards, no flowers, nothing.
Sadly, I’m not too surprised. When I went to a family-integrated church, everyone was very excited when we announced the upcoming arrival of our second child. But when I was on nine weeks of bed rest, in an attempt to keep out of the hospital, I received one card, and two brief visits. None of the elders made any attempt to keep in touch with me, even thought they saw Mr. Hoppy at church every week.
And the two families that stopped by? They were the two “selfish” families who had “cut off their fertility” by only having two kids. All the other “godly” families with 5-10 kids were too busy to visit or send a card (except for the one card I got.) Despite all Vision Forum’s bloviating about “sending our stay-at-home daughters out to serve,” it didn’t happen.
One girl from church did offer to help out occasionally for free. I nearly cried when she offered because she had shown more compassion for my situation with that offer than the rest of the church combined, and she was only about 14-15. Overall, though, we spent $2000 on in home care for someone to watch our oldest child while I laid in bed all day. (At least that was cheaper than ending up in the hospital.)
Since that time, I have noticed that when I have been sick, the non-Christians around me are more likely to ask if I need them to go to the grocery store and get something for me.
Daisy wrote:
My grandma experienced this with her friends from the neighborhood. (She was Catholic and I don’t know if she had church friends or not.) Nearly all her so-called friends dropped her when her husband died when they were in their early 60s. Now, to be fair, she wasn’t the easiest person to get along with. So it’s possible that they really liked him all those years and not her.
At the FIC we went to, the elders were considering adding two new elders. They announced the two candidates to the congregation. The specifically said we weren’t “voting” on the two men, but that if we had any concerns about their qualifications, to go see the elders.
One of the new elders had only been attending the church for six months, hardly enough time to know if he was qualified or not. I think they decided he was qualified based on his theology and being one of the older members, not based on how he acted. A few years later, Mr. Hoppy and I discovered that he was unreliable and seemed to talk out of both sides of his mouth, doctrinally.
@ Diane: Have got this info down for a post. This is ridiculous.
Thanks
@ Dave A A:
So, politics at its best for the Acts 29/9 Marks proponents!
This is the way for leaders to get around involving those pesky saints. Unfortunately, I’ve seen this happen myself. The actions of these leaders point to the belief that the members/saints are not capable of contributing to the functioning of the Church. This thinking is not what the early church or Paul were advocating at all.
@ Diane:
Yikes! After all those people uprooted themselves and moved to support what Mahaney etnall was doing in Louisville! Now they are not members of thar church. If they had known that before they moved, would they have moved? Does this mean that the leaders of the Louisville church can lead in a different direction (Baptist) and the members have no choice? How absurd! Dever doesn’t sound like a pastor one bit. He sounds like a tyrant! And, yes, I’d call him out on the comment in person and tell him he sounds like a tyrant.
Excellent post! Just talked with a couple today (the wife has experienced abuse in the church) who do not go to church anymore because of the patriarchal “stuff”. I say stuff because that is all it is- is stuff, junk; dross, swill, refuse.
No wonder we have a exodus from the church instead of an exodus to the church- there is no trust.
I go to church now, but only to give some structure to my kids (and the church I go to is a sweet, godly church); but I don’t trust any church right now because once you have been burned by it, you end up feeling jaded and jilted. Now saying this I am as strong in my relationship with Jesus as I ever have been and my hope is that others are continuing their relationship with Him and growing despite the deterioration of the corporate church.
I personally feel that the church today is a post-modern piece of c**p and not at all what Jesus would call a church. I also feel that (because the Bible is very clear about this) there are celebrity pastors and leaders in our churches that are scammers and frauds and do not have a personal relationship with Jesus; they are in it for the poser and money. Church is a very lucrative business. The other problem is that those who are true Christian pastors and laity are being co-opted into believing the lies of these so-called pastors. The thing that happens with pastors today is that buddy, buddy system and nothing gets called out or dealt with for fear of losing their church or prestige.
Elders? Not a position to be voted on. You have to be older (root meaning mature)as in lived long enough to acquire some wisdom. And you have to have actually acquired it.
Pastors? The only way to save that sinking ship is to stop the career track. Most churches didn’t ever pay their SS teachers and supt…..at least until the latter became an ordained minister of education. No, they were volunteers. In smaller churches the musicians and song leader (not music minister) are still volunteers.
My take is to go back to be real Baptists who form churches and then select someone to fill the pulpit.
No pay for any positions is the only way to weed out the dross.
linda wrote:
Many elders today are very young because they are more malleable to an agenda. Also, many elders get in their positions because they have money and are successful in their businesses.
I want to see an elder who is a blue collar worker in one of these “successful” megas.
@ HoppyTheToad:
Hoppy,
I think you might enjoy Wendell Berry’s Jayber Crow. But I warn you, the ending is a two-hankie ending if there ever was one.
trust4himonly- Faith wrote:
As you know, we contend that approximately 16.5 million “Nones” are actually committed to their faith.
linda wrote:
The FIC I went to started out having the elders taking turns preaching, but eventually let the other men rotate through doing the sermons. This meant everyone still had enough time to run their business or go to their jobs. (Mr. Hoppy was about the only man never invited to give the sermon. I guess they didn’t think he toed the party line enough.)
The elders also agreed with some of you that they shouldn’t be paid – at least they did while we were there. Later I heard they were rethinking this idea. Despite not getting paid, they were still over-controlling like many of the 9 Marks churches described here.
While Paul does talk about the worker being worth his wages, Jesus warns about the “hirelings.” Maybe Paul’s thoughts are more applicable to traveling missionaries, the closest we have to apostles today. At the same time, Paul stated that although he had the right to church support, he turned it down and continued with his tent making so as to not be a burden to people.
Muff, I will look up the book you suggested. Is it fiction or a biography?
trust4himonly- Faith wrote:
If we didn't have kids and weren't members of a health care sharing ministry that requires regular church attendance, I think we'd be likely to give up church attendance too.
Sorry, the first paragraph was the quote from trust4himonly and the second is my response.
@ HoppyTheToad: I fixed it for you. 🙂
Bridget wrote:
Those Apostles were “eyewitnesses” of the life and gospel of Christ. When a replacement was selected for Judas, (Acts 1:21) a requirement was that new Apostle be from among the men who “were with us the entire time we were traveling with the Lord Jesus.”
The New Testament had not been written yet, so all teaching had to come by word of mouth.
numo wrote:
I’m a UMC pastor, though I am not yet an elder. Elders are fully ordained, a process that can (and usually does) take years. We have licensed local pastors (usually small, rural churches), commissioned (provisional) elders, and elders in full connection (ordained). Yeah, it’s complicated.
@ Darcyjo: Thanks! (Still confused, though, but maybe you guys are, too? 😉 )
@ numo:
Yeah, you could say that. 😀
I’m a recent seminary graduate with an MDiv, hoping to eventually be ordained. In the meantime, I serve two churches as a licensed local pastor while I continue the process. Such fun. 😉
unshaken wrote:
This is interesting because what happens not long after? Paul happens. Paul describes himself as an Apostle and is often found giving his bonafides as such. We hear nothing further of the inside guy chosen by casting lots.
Diane wrote:
Diane, this is standard teaching in the SBC Reformed wing and has caused havoc all over. In fact, a book was written about 30 years ago outlining how to do this called Quiet Revolution by Ernest Reisinger who wanted to bring the “true Gospel” to SBC churches. The book is not even read anymore since the tactics are well ingrained in that movement. You see, we are too stupid to know the truth and would reject it so they have to redefine words and concepts and slowly indoctrinate us. Just like they have done with so many young men who are now carrying the flag.
Janey wrote:
The SBC and most do not even know it. Funding also includes “resources” like seminaries which are supported by the churches, SBC entities that plant church using tithe money, etc.
@ Darcyjo: Ah… it almost sounds like the process in many Lutheran churches (am Lutheran myself) where a person is ordained to the diaconate, and then “graduates” to full ordination (as a pastor) after a similar “apprenticeship.” (We don’t use the term “elder,” and I was in evangelical/charismatic independent groups for a long time, where “elder” basically = dictator – not necessarily benevolent, either.)
“Nutshell- my take, and I listened to it 3 times, was that Dever thinks it is wise to not state your Calvinist beliefs up front when applying for a pastor job in a non-Calvinist leaning church. Reason for this secrecy? Because Jesus healed a leper and told him not to tell anyone, along with other passages regarding Jesus keeping aspects of His ministry secret.”
Diane, Could we be seeing institutionalized systematic deception that has been declared sinless deception? Doug Phillips used to call them “Rahab lies” because they decided the lies were for our own good
@ Anon 1:
I am not a SB so this is all new to me. I’ve been reading a bit and found this:
http://www.9marks.org/journal/revitalize-why-we-must-reclaim-dying-churches%E2%80%94and-how
which I will go through, and read a couple of blogs where I saw the name you mentioned…Ernest Reisinger.
Thanks!
All I know is that there are many pastors just faithfully preaching the Word, loving their congregation, and leading them by the Spirit through the Word as best they can. I’m one of many who is full time, but not paid enough to support my family so I work another job to keep food on the table. I live in the state with the highest rate of “forced” resignations for pastors as well as the highest suicide rate for pastors. There are a lot of problematic pastors no doubt, and I do understand the audience intended for this blog. But there are a lot of bad church members out there too. Case in point: There was a meeting 2 months after I became a pastor of a church where the goal was to get enough members to withhold financial support in order to “starve my children” (exact words and have been a verified). Spiritual abuse takes many forms.
Anon 1 wrote:
Anon 1 & Diane — Jehovah’s Witnesses call this Theocratic War Strategy. You can lie to anyone — or as critic Dr. Bergman says,
PP wrote:
PP — That’s very sad. Spiritual abuse does take many forms. Those with power must work hard to make sure they are treating vulnerable ones with care. I hope your story took a better turn eventually.
@ PP:
Oh good grief. 🙁 That is awful.
Janey wrote:
Yes! That is what I was referring to above with the cults that withhold information.
@ PP:
I know of an Episcopal church in my state in which the congregants decided en masse to only give a dollar (or some such tiny amount) on Sundays to run the pastor out of the church. Unintended consequence: the pastor left, but the church shut down. So I now I guess they have no pastor, and no church. Cutting off your nose to spite your face and all that jazz. Bad idea.
Janey wrote:
This is also a tenant of Islam.
@ PP:
Wow, PP. That is not a long honeymoon period after they hired you! Most pastors get a few years unless they try and make too many changes too soon. I have a bivoc pastor friend who was hired in a country church and was run out in 3 months. Seems there was a well heeled businessman who found someone else he liked better and had to get rid of him.
Again, I really think the “office” of pastor is slowly becoming obsolete. Not the function, mind you.
@ Anon 1:
“love your enemies” only applies to “true believers” in your own faith community, doncha know
—-Paraphrase of comment on TGC
Pingback: marvin smith
@ Janey:
I could only get half way through Owen’s gobbly-goop – some “gems” -the current egalitarian hermeneutic is now experiential and emotive, and, of course he adds, in step with society.
His view – “we’ve been able to show that complementarianism rests upon a rock-solid scholarly foundation.” is hilarious when you remember they had to make a Bible translation that lied (it did, check it out online) and said Junia was a woman “known to” the apostles. Actually the word “en” in ancient Greek is similar to the French word “en” – they both mean “in” or “among”. so Junia is “among the apostles”. But then it gets worse. They can’t say she is Outstanding to the apostles, so they translate the word Outstanding to “known” in Greek it’s episēmos. Episēmos is a word to denote BDAG[9] (p378) defines episēmos (ἐπίσημος) as (1) “of exceptional quality, splendid, prominent, outstanding” and as a second, alternative definition, it says: (2) “Also in a bad sense: notorious.”[10]
http://newlife.id.au/equality-and-gender-issues/junia-and-the-esv/
I just find it amusing that they neglected to mention the really glaring condemnation against gendered spiritual gifts in their conservative translation and instead went on about “Kephale” (But, “Kephale” is all bound up in the context of wives do this, “slaves submit to your masters” yet even the early church, once it gained enough power, overthrew slavery *in the Roman empire*, so it didn’t put a biblical “rule” on Greco/Roman household roles, it just said if you are stuck as a slave or a wife be a really good Christian slave or wife (they were all getting throw to the lions anyways). For BOTH slaves and wives it says if you can get out of it, do so: slaves, gain freedom if possible, women, better to not marry at all (if given a choice). But they ignore the quicksand of the early church in favour of their own legalism. Sure, the Bible warns about conforming to culture, but Jesus is far more condemning of those caught in legalism.
@ HoppyTheToad:
That does seem to happen quite a bit, from what I’ve seen in forums for singles, and in a few books, that widows get dropped like hot potatoes once their husband dies.
On the other hand, I have seen at least one never married Christian woman over 40 say she has seen the opposite in her church: the widows get taken care of by the church (people take her out to lunch, help her with auto repairs, mow her lawn, etc), but as a never married woman, nobody helps her.
I guess in her church they assume it is up to them to assume the former husband’s role for the widow – but it is sad and makes me angry nobody is showing her (the never married lady) the same consideration.
I saw on a Non Christian site that a Non Christian lady saw bias between genders. She and her brother had never married, they lived fairly close to each other, but while her brother got luncheon invites, and invited over to holiday dinners by neighbors, friends, co workers, nobody did so for her.
There does seem to be more sympathy for un-married men in that aspect than there is for women. I don’t know what it is. There are un-married women who would love to be invited over for holiday dinners rather than spend the day alone.
HoppyTheToad wrote:
I’ve noticed that too, not that I have lots and lots of Non Christian friends, but I’ve noticed that.
After my mother died, the few internet acquaintances I have (some were Non Christians), when they did get on the internet, showed more concern and compassion towards me than the majority of Christians I know or am related to.
Some of us discussed this at Internet Monk. I saw a few people in a thread there say when they were sick (hospitalized, battling depression or whatever) that their Christian friends/ church/ family ignored them, or made hurtful comments, but they said their Non Christian friends (atheists and one guy was a Buddhist or Hindu) offered compassion and actual help.
The Buddhist friend of one guy in the thread brought several days worth of pre-cooked meals to the guy’s home, when he was really sick. His Christian friends did nothing.
I don’t have much money any more, but I’ve always tried to do something for friends and family who are having a tough time, what little I could, whether it’s just a card, or letting them talk my ear off when they are hurting (and I don’t judge or criticize when they are sharing their troubles, I just listen).
Daisy wrote:
My father helped cure the pastor of a church of cancer – basically for free. (He was an internist). My father was head of the elder board, very involved in spite of the heavy work load he carried. When he got cancer – you got it. No one came and visited for the several years until he died. Not until a year later when they visited my mother – to pressure her to give more money to the church so they could focus on young married folk. I always wondered if they even had read the passage about taking care of widows….
At at least on seminary they teach that a pastor should study for 1 hour for each minute of sermon. Most sermons I have heard obviously reverse the order.
PP wrote:
That is terrible. 🙁 😯
@ Val:
You know how bad it really is? Check out Piper and Grudem on Junia. Of course they try to forget this one:
http://godswordtowomen.org/juniapreato.htm
“John Piper and Wayne Grudem state that Epiphanius (315-403) wrote an Index of Disciples, in which he writes: “Iounias, of whom Paul makes mention, became bishop of Apameia of Syria.” According to them, Epiphanuis wrote “of whom” as a masculine relative pronoun thereby indicating that he thought Iounias was a man.8 Piper and Grudem also presented the results of their computer search of ancient Greek writings looking for the name “Junia(s).” Based on their findings, they concluded that “no one should claim that Junia was a common woman’s name in the Greek speaking world, since there are only three known examples in all of ancient Greek literature.”9
a. Discussion. Douglas Moo discusses Epiphanius and calls into question the reliability of this evidence because in the same passage, Epiphanius thought “Prisca” (Priscilla) was a man.”10 This church father also wrote and believed that “the female sex is easily seduced, weak and without much understanding. The Devil seeks to vomit out this disorder through women… We wish to apply masculine reasoning and destroy the folly of these women” (Epiphanius, Adversus Collyridianos, Migne, Patrologia Graeca, Volume 42, Column 740 f).11
….”
Janey wrote:
Islam has the same concept, called Taqiyya
me wrote:
I’m very sorry; that is horrible.
I don’t know why churches are so into married- with- kids couples, or just younger people in general.
They are now a very small portion of the American population. A little under half the US population is now single (one source I saw says it’s up to 50 some odd percent), and even among married couples, a big chunk do not have children.
me wrote:
I’ve never really understood this emphasis. Why must every pastor come up with new earthshaking insights into very common Scripture passages? Is that really the best use of their time? So many aren’t particularly good as exegesis. If I were a pastor, I would draw heavily from the great sermons of the past and happily give credit where due…then spend time in visitation, discipleship, and counseling.
Daisy wrote:
Sometimes you have to read the fine print. This gem was tucked away under The “Our Mission” statement of the website of my former (Reformed, 9 Marks) church:
“We recognize that strong churches come from strong families and seek to strengthen the Kingdom by strengthening marriages and families. We strive to equip parents and children to have Christ-centered family relationships. Additionally, we want to help singles and individuals without families find a very real sense of family within our church.”
Apparently they believe there is a “trickle-down” phenomenon whereby all the church resources (time, programs, resources, ministry opportunities, etc.), once invested in the “real families”, eventually make their way down to the rif-raf (the singles and individuals without families. BTW, this sounds like if you don’t have kids, you don’t have a family.) It seems to me a strong local church might emerge from a group of broken, incompetent losers (prostitutes and tax collectors, and their modern counterparts come to mind) wholly dependent upon a God who made Himself nothing on their behalf. But then, I don’t have an Mdiv…or a “family”.
Janet wrote:
It’s funny you should mention the “trickle-down.” The church is completely clueless about its approach to singleness and divorce. The leadership assumes that a woman who is the innocent party in a divorce will be cared for. They believe that the other women in the church will come alongside and befriend the hapless woman (I’m using women as an example. I’m aware it happens to men too.) But in reality the women do the exact opposite. They are too busy with their own children and husbands, and they worry the divorcee will swipe their husbands or make divorce seem attractive. (Avoiding divorced people is highly touted in Christian books and marriage enrichment videos.) They never invite the woman to their small groups again. And they wonder why she leaves the church and finds a secular group of friends to be her family.
Janet wrote:
Excellent Janet!
I am starting to view the single moms in our churches as equivalent in many respects to the concept of the 1st Century widow since divorce was so rare back then. I have really been convicted about helping them as much as I can whether it is money, babysitting, fixing things for them, etc, etc. The last thing the church should do is put burdens on them about serving. They are overwhelmed as it is.
One of the things that really bothered me in the seeker mega world was this idea that men and women who were not married could never be alone together. There were all these rules about office doors never being closed when meeting, not being in the car together, etc. These rules really affected single moms badly who needed help but married men in the church were reluctant to go by and fix a blocked drain without their wives present. This stuff is so silly to me and degrading to the single mom.
As far as singles are concerned, I am appalled at how they are viewed by many in evangelical circles. It is as if they believe a real Christian life does not begin until they are married. For people who claim the bible as inerrant, they sure did miss what Paul said about not marrying.
Anon 1 wrote:
I agree. It is absolutely degrading and disrespectful. The church should not allow the insecurities of wives to keep the husbands from doing what God calls them to do. Jesus wasn’t worried about being seen with single women, even with wanton single women, and he talked with them … gasp … alone.
There is need for plumbing, car repair, etc., but to be honest, friendship, companionship, and community are far more important to single mothers than anything else. Including them, rather than subtly excluding them, is the biggest help.
The other problem with churches is that they give funds only to exemplary single mothers. The people running these benevolence funds see this as investment fund, not as a charity and mercy fund. They ought to give more freely (I’m not talking about giving to known scam artists), keeping in mind that there are children in need. I’ve seen churches say turn down regular-church-attending single mothers who had legitimate need, all because they didn’t like her personality or were angry with her that she couldn’t get off welfare, or couldn’t fill in a 4-page single-spaced document detailing all of her income/expenses, or because they had “already given to her once,” even though there was plenty of money in the benevolence fund.
This is a sore spot with me. I’ve had to circumvent my own church’s benevolence fund by using another charity set up just for single mothers.
What about coral as a metaphor for the church? No head, is a colony and appears as a single organism, though they gather together to protect and help one another.
My pastor preached about Jeremiah 12 today, and although he preached the more general topic of ‘why do the wicked prosper?’, I could not help but think of my former pastor and what he is doing to the church. They elected a new elder there a couple of months ago, and this new elder grew up in a mega church in California. They started to put pressure on the pastor for not putting enough effort into his sermons. His response? ‘I need to take a sabbatical’.
This guy gets paid 70K a year, and when his kids were at home it seemed reasonable, he has 7 children. But his last one is halfway through college, and the rest are married. In my opinion, he was a crappy parent (some of the kids did really famous bad things), he farmed off all his duties (no longer does pastoral vists, counseling, visitation of the sick, etc.) and no longer spends any time in the church building or with the congregation. He knows Hebrew and Greek, and is good as a teacher only, but amongst the small congregation, teaching should be the least thing he should be doing. Most who go to this church are young professionals with advanced degrees. Yet the pastor considers the congregants his sheep who “would not undstand advanced theology” and is very hierarchal.
No one is talking about it, what we have heard is just dribbles, overflow of disillusioned people. One of those congregants that we are friendly with consider it gossip that we are asking about it. The troubles they are having now are basically the reason most people have left the church. It’s a shame.
@ Anon 1:
Never- married- with- no- children women get the same treatment, and it’s insulting for those of us who have really good morals and would never sleep with a married guy.
I wouldn’t say it’s only a Christian problem per se, as far as viewing women as sex pots who will bed any man around…
Since my teen years, I’ve had men, both Christian and NonChristian, mistake simple chit chat for flirting.
Some of these men were physically unattractive, yet arrogantly assumed that merely because I said “hello, how are you today” to them that I was flirting and wanted to date them.
This problem of single Christian women being neglected by churches because the married women, and the men, are afraid all single women are raunchy Jezebels is one that has been mentioned before (with anecdotal examples) in books by and for Christian singles that I’ve read.
It it definitely a problem with leads to unmarried women being excluded from churches/ Christian community and getting whatever help they might need.
My last post said,
“a problem with leads to unmarried women ”
Should be “which leads to”
I bet the John Pipers and Mark Driscolls of the world would find this upsetting (I don’t think they would regard a husband being a care giver a “masculine” role, or not masculine enough):
More men becoming caregivers, studies show
Serious question, not meant to pick a fight, and coming from my husband:
Why are single women seemingly (our experience)so determined that for church to meet their needs they have to have the married men of the church offering them lots of one-on-one help with their homes, their cars, or being their “best friend?”
Why is it somehow not ok for me, his wife, to offer that friendship? Or the physical help they may need if it is something this married woman handles quite well herself?
We decided long ago that along with physical sexual intimacy being reserved for each other, so would emotional intimacy with a person of the opposite sex. Why is that not acceptable?
And why, after I’ve taken the car to get the oil changed, fixed the faucet, loaded the camper, and brought in firewood should he rush to your place to hang a curtain rod, or change the oil in your car, or fix your faucet?
Bear in mind I come from a rather Anglo Catholic mindset where all of God’s children are to be busy serving Him OUTSIDE the doors of the church. Singles as well as marrieds are called to the church to be strengthened in the receiving of the sacraments, then go out and serve.
Of course, the opportunities and ways of serving won’t be the same for all, and all of us won’t have the exact same support systems in place. But Christ, not me, centered worship seems to work fine for ALL the various life circumstances represented in our church: married, widowed, divorced, single, with kids, without kids, rich, poor, etc.
As my husband put it rather simply: if he is going to spend time listening to someone’s thoughts, being their best friend, spending time with them, he simply would rather be with me. It is what marriage is all about. He doesn’t owe intimacy to anyone else.
Linda, I totally get your post. As a background, I am 53, mother of an almost grown son, divorced (my husband left us 10 years ago), a physician by training, but the majority of my working life was as a teacher at a Christian School in my small community. I have not dated, mostly because I cannot find permission in the Bible to do so (my ex husband was a believer and remains unmarried), but also because I could never fathom how bringing another man into my young sons life could possibly benefit him. Mixed with heartbreak I have found an overwhelming joy in Christ not only as my sufficiency but also in the freedom to realize and utilize my spiritual gifts: mercy and giving.
Whoops… I’m doing this on my phone, didn’t mean to post that last one so soon. The beauty of being part of one body is that there is a place for my gifts: the divorced, elderly and those without a family. I am overjoyed that I finally get to practice my gifts without the stifling influence of a mate who thought the local church a waste. My counsel to couples who wish to help a single or divorced woman has always been that the single woman have primary contact with the wife and Secondly with the couple jointly but never one on one with the husband because he
is not your rescuer or Knight. These women are to have the utmost respect for those marriages they come in contact with.
That said, I can tell you that I personally have functioned as home repair and auto maintenance guru (Thanks to much help from YouTube) for myself AND this group of women while the men folk have been totally missing in action. My home is the transit stop for women in need , my kitchen is the origination spot for nearky hundreds of meals a month,
Linda,
I’m going to take you at your word that you are not intending to pick a fight and that this is a serious question.
I have been single and alone for the past 20 years; much of that in the church. I raised my children as a single Mom in the church and during that time I was happy to receive practical assistance from either gender; because I really needed it. I was working full time, raising two children, and keeping a house. Still, I learned to cope with most issues myself or to pay someone to do it if I possibly could. I often wished that I had your skill set as cars and tools are not my forte. When I did ask for help I made the request appropriately urgent, i.e. my car is broken down on the side of the road vs. the toilet is running.
When I asked for help I asked someone I trusted to tell me no if it wasn’t convenient, to recommend someone else if the other person was better equipped, and not to resent or judge me. If it happened to be a married guy, I also trusted his wife not to assume that I was after her husband. If I knew a woman who was capable of helping with what I needed (lifting something very heavy, maybe) I would probably be more comfortable asking her.
I was careful that my conversation with the guy didn’t make either me or him uncomfortable, that I didn’t take undue advantage of his kindness, and that I conveyed my thanks to his wife and family as well as to him for his time.
I’ve known a lot of single women in and out of the church and I don’t think I’m that unusual.
That said, there are selfish and manipulative people inside as well as outside the church and some of them are single women. There are also lonely people and some of them cope better with their loneliness than others. I think you have to have gone without emotional intimacy or companionship (more painful and damaging long term that doing without sex in my experience) to understand what that’s like.
As I said, I take you at your word that you don’t want to pick a fight; but I don’t hear much empathy or charity towards ANY single women trying to make it.
It’s wonderful that your husband desires your company above that of any other woman and he certainly doesn’t “owe” intimacy to anyone else. It’s also good that you both have the desire to serve. However, I think you’d both be better off serving people that you don’t judge and resent as you apparently do the single women who need curtain rods hung. And so would they. It’s acceptable to say no or to say, “Linda is good at that sort of thing, let me get her.” IF what you really want is to see someone served and to avoid temptation for all concerned.
I guess you and Mr. Linda need to decide what you really want.
@ linda:
Linda –
I think it is okay for you to offer the help. I don’t think it is good for a single man/women to become emotionally attached to a married person of the opposite sex. Emotional closeness
My meager income funds it, and my glorious God provides it. Not one man has stepped forth to lead , assist, or contribute. Yes, I made these needs known to the elders of my church but I was told I had a Martha spirit and that our church had no real need for a mercy ministry especially since I am “not a leader. ” I pray Linda, that you see this population not as one who
desires intimacy with your husband, but as one who longs for safety and provision for their
children And how for themselves. You are Mmissing out on some of God’s most precious blessings.
Ps… how wonderful people feel comfortable approaching your husband with their needs. When I was married I prayed that my husband would become that kind of man. Blessings to you both.
People can be manipulative.
But I wonder what this all does to actual friendships between people? I mean, I’ve never wanted to get that close to a married man, but I think there’s at least a possibility that there can be genuine friendships… though they have to be *very* closely watched and I think there need to be clear boundaries.
One thing that I’ve really missed over the past 25+ years are non-sexual friendships with men. It gets lonely out here, you know, and not all companionship is sexual (or tending that way) by default.
I’m probably going to get into trouble for this post, but what the hey…
@ Bridget:
that comment button is just in the way 🙁
. . . special between a husband and wife. OTOH, it doesn’t mean single men/women can’t have meaningful conversation with a married person of the opposite sex.
As a person who was on my own for nine hears before marriage, I learned how to do all kinds of things for myself. I spent time with single and married folks. The entire gender nonsense just wasn’t an issue in the early eighties in the church I was involved in.
Numo, I agree with you about the need for relationships with both genders. Within the church my social life has been relegated to the very elderly, mostly widows, those with life disabling mental or emotional issues, and almost never with a “real family” or those with healthy marriages. In that respect I have been thankful for my non-church going friends.
Daisy wrote:
hmmm…Pat Robertson might just tell them to remarry. 🙁
@ linda:
Gender is irrelevant. I wouldn’t mind if a wife helped me. That would be great.
What if the wife doesn’t know how to change the oil in my car, and my oil needs changed, but her husband, or a husband in the church, knows how to do that? Should I or some other single lady be allowed to approach him and ask him for help?
Anyway – the problem isn’t as you state it (‘why don’t singles ask women for help’), but that unmarried women are viewed as threats who will bed a married man in a hot second, by many married Christians males, females, and by preachers, and the overall church community. It’s a very insulting stereotype.
Sometimes married women have affairs with married men. Christians don’t like to broach that subject, though, nor do many Non Christians. People like to perceive single women as threats.
If a single does ask a man for help – she should not be assumed to have ulterior (adulterous) motives.
linda wrote:
Your husband’s attitude and yours on these subjects is actually pretty un-biblical. Before I discuss that in more detail, though:
I’ve noticed in previous discussions when singleness is brought up, and I legitimately point out how Christian culture usually marginalizes, stereotypes, mistreats, or stigmatizes singles / singlehood (and it indeed does), you will then jump in to portray singles as whiny, selfish types.
This would be like telling the victims of child sex abuse, or others who have been mistreated or hurt by a church, or Christians in general in other ways, to hush up, keep quiet, and just focus on Jesus.
I don’t know why you are so opposed to churches and married men helping un-married ladies (or treating singles with respect); you have brought these same points up before on older threads.
Christ said you are to put other believers (who may be non relatives) before, or on par with, spouse and flesh- and- blood family, and you are to meet the needs of other believers.
I also find your views a little odd. If I’m at your church and inquire if your spouse can change the oil in my car, all I will do is say, “thank you” if he does so.
I’m not looking to strike up “emotional intimacy” with your spouse (or whomever’s spouse) if he’s at my home changing a light bulb I cannot reach, or some such.
I don’t really see it as wrong for two believers, regardless of gender/ martial status, getting to know one another and to share.
The Bible says to carry one another’s burdens, weep with those who are weep.
And it does not say “only married women may weep with single women who weep” or “only men should and may weep with other men”.
The Bible actually teaches that all Christians are supposed to fellowship with one another, not just marrieds with marrieds, singles with singles, or not only married men with single men, or married women with single women.
linda wrote,
and brought in firewood should he rush to your place to hang a curtain rod, or change the oil in your car, or fix your faucet?
If your husband has the time and energy to do so, why not?
If he truly does not want to do so, all he has to do is say “No,” or, “Can I help you with that next Saturday instead, when I’m not so tired,” or, “Let me see if our mutual friend Ralph can help you with that.”
Wives in America typically out-live their husbands by ten or more years.
Your husband will probably die before you, linda, and you will find yourself alone, in need of assistance from someone, just like single women now do.
Would you honestly want other people brushing you off, the way you are suggesting in this thread, that married people brush off singles?
Some adult singles do not have adult children, extended family, or siblings they can turn to.
One of my parents is already dead. One sibling is estranged. Another sibling of mine has a hot temper, so I can’t go to any of the remaining family I have for help / love.
This comment:
But Christ, not me, centered worship seems to work fine for ALL the various life circumstances represented in our church: married, widowed, divorced, single, with kids, without kids, rich, poor, etc.
This is basically a variation of the “Jesus is all you need” or “go out and serve, take your mind off yourself” cliched advice I see so often, tossed out as a pat answer to all manner of hurting people, whether those who are single and lonely, with depression, a physical handicap, etc.
Serving is not a substitute for someone loving you, listening to you, putting an arm around you as you cry, for receiving empathy, or in times when you may need help with some chore around the house.
Focusing on Jesus only sure as heck did not make grief over losing my Mom any easier, and it didn’t deliver me of many years of clinical depression.
“Focusing on Jesus” is not an instant cure-all for all life’s problems and pain, and sounds like the hurtful advise Job’s friends gave him when he was hurting.
One of my Aunts is in her 60s, her only adult son has been dead for years, she’s been divorced for years, she lives alone.
When my Aunt went in for leg surgery, she had her brother (my uncle) drive her home from the hospital.
My uncle (who is married) is the only one she has to rely on (I don’t have a car anymore). I don’t think she’s been to church in forever. She has emotional problems, too.
She has absolutely nobody else for help or to rely on. There are other people like her – all alone. I don’t know what she will do when the uncle dies.
I could just imagine my Aunt phoning up church members (if she went to church) asking for a ride home after surgery, and the married ladies lecturing her to just “be content in whatever circumstances you are in… focus on Jesus… don’t expect the church to meet your needs…” (*)
That attitude goes against this verse:
James 2:16:
If one of you says to them [someone in need], “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it?
—————-
*(I actually got some of those insensitive comments after my mother died from church people, when I went to them for empathy, it is one reason of several I am sour on the Christian faith now and wonder how much of it is even true).
Your attitude on all this will likely change when you find yourself in a life crisis and are on the receiving end of these sorts of lectures and platitudes.
It feels worse when those same people, who call themselves Christians, offer rationalizations as to why they cannot or should not help you.
Luke 10:25-37
Victorious wrote:
You’re right!
Robertson did say that dementia is a “type of death” and by that logic, he felt it was okay for a married man to divorce his wife and date someone else.
Robertson: Divorce Your Wife With Alzheimers (Video)
That advice is a 🙁 and a 😯
linda wrote:
Linda — Several hours ago when I wrote the original post that kicked off this micro-thread, I was going to say something about how Christian wives are the first people to reject divorced women. But I worried that no one would believe me. It sound so resentful. But since you brought it up, I will go into some detail.
Let me explain what happens when a good Christian woman, through no fault of her own, ends up divorced.
1. Her good noble past is wiped out. She is no longer treated as a trustworthy woman of good character. She is now considered a wanna-be harlot who is after your husband. Even if she never had an affair in her life, she is redefined by nearly every married woman in the church as being a seductress.
2. The church leadership naively believes that the married women will help newly divorced single mothers. It’s sad but married women almost they never do. These wives tell themselves they have kid responsibilities, husband responsibilities, and household responsibilities that need to be done first–and they never get these thing done. In short they find every many reasons not help the newly divorced frightened single mother. It’s like the excuse of Corban in the New Testament — that godly sounding “responsibility” that allowed people to ignore the care of their aging parents.
3. The church is complicit in this rejection. They provide Christian marriage enrichment books for small groups and marriage videos that recommend that married people stay away from those “who don’t honor marriage.” This gives permission for marrieds in the church to ignore and marginalize divorcees, and treat them as threats or plague carriers rather than as important, valuable members of the household of faith.
4. The divorced woman is unlikely to be invited to her old “care group” again, even if everyone in the group sympathized with her and realized she had no choice in the situation. She is now a outsider…a loser to be cast away. They don’t even care where she ends up. They just don’t want her in *their* group because she might be a temptation to one of the men.
5. Married woman have come to me and said, “I don’t want divorced women to be treated nicely because it might encourage divorce.” No one is harder on herself that a devout woman who reluctantly files for divorce after years of praying that her marriage might be fixed, and finally recognizes that it can’t. Treating divorcees in the church nicely doesn’t encourage divorce.
6. Married women criticize their husbands so vehemently for helping, sympathizing or listening, that the men eventually give up and abandon the divorced woman too. Now the cycle of rejection is complete.
Very few people care about a divorcee unless she is in their immediate family. So where can the woman go but to her secular friends for support, friendship, and a listening ear?
And people wonder why women have abandoned the church at nearly double the rate that men have in the past 20 years?
I apologize for all the typos above, but I think you get the gist.
I just want to add that these “Christian” men who think every single woman who says hello to them would jump their bones if she had half a chance need to just get over themselves.
Yes, faithful husbands must be purposeful and wise about remaining faithful. But I have had men I wouldn’t be tempted by alone on a desert island act this way around me. Sheesh.
Janey, the part of your post every reader should take back to their churches is that once a spouse leaves a marriage, the remaining spouse’s reputation is basically trashed. ….. regardless of years of faithful service. How dare we do this to each other. Biting and devouring the wounded.
janet wrote:
Janet — I hope people really take this seriously. I’ve seen good women and their children never get invited to play dates, birthday parties, or social events ever again. Sick. Sick. Sick. No wonder some children leave the faith.
Phoenix wrote:
Phoenix — Heh heh heh. So true. What makes them think they are such hot stuff? What egos!
Just to add a few thoughts:
Most (Not all!) single moms are lower income. Child support is usually not enough for the one who has custody. When I wrote my original comment about this I was thinking of the single mom who struggles financially. I also thought of the women in churches that I know who did not want their husbands fixing stuff for them. Now, keep in mind these were heavy comp churches where women did not usually change oil for fix drains. The gender roles were pretty narrow which feeds into this whole problem.
I was also thinking that helping fix things saves the single mom money. And because they usually work full time and have children they have little time for learning how to fix things and doing it themselves in order to save money.
I was NEVER thinking the husband would become a close friend who spends time listening to the single mom. Not sure where that came from.
Not long ago, a man at my church came out to the parking lot one day and saw a single mom get into her car with her two kids. He notice her tires and went over to her and said, can you spare some time today as you need new tires right now. Your car is not safe. She was stunned as he drove her car up to a tire place open on Sunday and bought her 4 new tires, alignment and warranty.
His wife took the mom and 2 kids to lunch.
This is being the kingdom now. This is the Body in motion. How do I know this? The single mom was overwhelmed and told us the next week in SS.
That one act, prompted more people to look for those who need help and just do it.
BTW: If one cannot trust their husband to help a single mom then the marriage is not that strong to begin with.
Anon 1 wrote:
My pastor would agree with you. He says, “It just proves how insecure that woman is, doesn’t it.”
@ Janey: While I’ve never been divorced (or married), I hear you.
I think much the same kind of thing happens to people who are widowed when young. And even to women whose husbands have to go out of town (or out of the country) for work for extended periods of time. It certainly did happen to my mom when she and my dad were young – when he was away, many people treated her like she was a pariah. but those same people had NO problem inviting her to do things so long as my dad was at home.
The hypocrisy – out there in society as a whole, back in the 50s and 60s – is just stunning.
Widows are largely ignored, even today, and it seems to me that my mom had to mostly seek out the company of other widows (for friendship and support) after my dad’s death. That’s not a bad thing, but you’d think – or hope – that the women whose husbands are still around would be a little kinder. Not necessarily.
@ Phoenix: So true! Thanks for telling it like it is.
The next Big Box post is up.
http://scarletlettersblog.wordpress.com/2013/07/07/why-the-church-needs-the-family-and-the-family-needs-the-church-tbb/
Daisy, Numo, and Janey,
You make excellent points, especially the verse from James 2. Mr. Hoppy and I will try to make sure we never treat single people or widows like second or third class citizens. Incidentally, Mr. Hoppy has a 30 year old cousin. The cousin’s 4 1/2 year old nephew asked him why he isn’t a “real adult” like his daddy. The cousin answered that yes he is, in fact, he’s older than the nephew’s dad. The nephew responded that he’s not an adult because he doesn’t have any kids!
How sad that so many in the church have a view that isn’t any more mature or nuanced than a 4 year old’s.
@ HoppyTheToad:
HoppyTheToad wrote:
The PCA churches choose their elders via a search and call system like Baptists. The UMC has gotten away from automatically rotating out their pastors on a regular basis. The bishop or DS meets with every elder annually for review, and the decision to keep or move an elder comes after consultation with the elder and a congregational committee. If both elder and committee agree on staying another year, then nobody moves. If either elder or committee say “yeah, it’s time for the elder to go” then the elder is transferred.
numo, who says society isn’t hypocritical now? 🙂 Hypocrisy is generally inevitable in every society the question is where that hypocrisy will manifest and over what values.
numo wrote:
Sad but true. I have a young widowed friend and it’s been hard on her. No couples reach out to her. Christians are so scared that there might be sexual temptation that they (we) routinely treat widows, singles, and divorce people poorly. It ignores the fact that affairs often happen between married people.
Janey wrote:
In all fairness, the church is scared of any mixed gender relationships.
I’ve gotten this before even with some single women (of which there are 3) at my church who say it’s important never to be alone with a man, even a single man. It created some hurdles for me when I was rehearsing with a girl for doing some recording. This is not a policy of my church or anything and not every single girl is like that, but it just creates so much unnecessary tension. You have to be cognoscente of the sexual angle of every action.
There is something very stunted about the way the church deals with relationships between men and women, and the way singles get treated is the fallout.
@ Janey:
This seems an opportune time to link a new website for “Give Her Wings”- a group I’ve been working with who does monthly fundraisers for single women who have fled domestic abuse:
http://giveherwings.com/html/about.html
Jeff S wrote:
Jeff S — Good point…and I guess Christians aren’t the only ones with hangups. It reminds me of the Muslim quote: “If a man and a woman are alone in one place, the third person present is the devil.”
Jeff S wrote:
Thanks for the information. It’s good to have a fund that actually gives money freely to needy people, simply because they are needy.
Many people assume that giving to their church’s benevolence fund will help the single parents in their churches, but I would recommend that everyone request the fund financials. I recently did and was shocked to see how benevolence was being misappropriated in my old mega-church.
@ Janey:
Yes- I can 100% vouch for this group because I helped start it 🙂 All of the money goes to the women (that doesn’t go to paypal fees and whatnot).
Basically, on ACFJ we see SO MANY women in need it’s just heartbreaking. And it’s great what we are able to do with the written word to encourage these women (and inform them). But there’s something important about “hands on” ministry too, and that’s what Megan and I wanted to do.
We know we can’t save any of these women or provide them with long term sustaining funds, but the encouragement of real Christians reaching out to help them gives such a lift- so many have been forgotten about or ignored by the church. When they see the REAL, invisible church in action, it has tremendous power.
@ numo:
That just seems so strange considering so many women lost husbands in WW2. You would think people would understand that.
JustSomeGuy – Argo – Anon 1
Much agreement when you write…
JustSomeGuy @ Fri Jul 05, 2013 at 06:28 PM said…
1 – “Is the pastor as we knew it outdated?”
2 – “We don’t need a pastor to tell us “what the bible says”.”
3 – “What purpose does a pastor have left? Why does the pastor even matter?”
Argo @ Sat Jul 06, 2013 at 09:19 AM said…
“ But I too am becoming more and more convinced that
“professional pastor” is becoming irrelevant.”
Anon 1 @ Sat Jul 06, 2013 at 08:21 PM said…
“Again, I really think the “office” of pastor is slowly becoming obsolete.
Not the function, mind you.”
“The pastor.” – “professional pastor” – “the “office” of pastor”
“Outdated.” – “Irrelevant.” – “Obsolete.”
I would add, or ask –
Does “the Pastor” – That we see today – Ever exist In the Bible?
Paid Professional Pastors – in Pulpits – Preaching to – People – in Pews?
In the bible – Don’t we see…
…… When folks come together, every one has a psalm, has a doctrine,
…… has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. 1 Cor 14:26.
…… *Everyone* can, and is expected to, *participate.* NOT listen to just one.
…… The pastor in a pulpit model creates spectators in the pews. Pew Potatoes.
Hasn’t anyone ever wondered – Why? In the Bible?
NOT one of *His Disciples* called themself – pastor/leader/reverend?
NOT one of *His Disciples* had the “Title/Position” – pastor/leader/reverend?
NOT one of *His Disciples* was – Hired, or Fired – as a – pastor/leader/reverend?
If the “Title/Postion” – pastor/leader/reverend – Is – NOT in the Bible?
Wouldn’t that “Title/position” be – Non-Biblical – Un-Biblical – Extra-Biblical – Anti-Biblical?
No wonder todays – pastor/leader/reverend – suffers so – and their families…
The high rates of depression – burnout – moral failure – failing marriages…
They have taken a “Title/Position” – pastor/leader/reverend – NOT found in the Bible.
And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold:
them also I must bring, and they shall “hear My voice; “
and there shall be “ONE” fold, and “ONE” shepherd.
John 10:16
One Voice – One Fold – One Shepherd
{{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}
Hi Deb
You write @ Fri Jul 05, 2013 at 07:26 PM…
“Each of us must reach out to fulfill the Great Commission.”
Was wondering…
What do *you* mean by “the Great Commision?”
I‘ve heard that term before – BUT, it is NOT in the Bible.
And, most folks I know that say they are trying to “fulfill the Great Commission.”
Do NOT teach what Jesus taught *His Disciples.*
What is popular is NOT always “Truth.”
What is “Truth” is NOT always popular.
Jeff S wrote:
Jeff, the act of helping them in any way is such encouragement. I cannot tell you how many have told me this. If it takes the pressure off for a short time it is huge to them. If it takes care of one small problem for that day, it is a huge weight not to have to deal with that one thing for now. It is as if Jesus is telling them: I see you and I have sent someone to give you some encouragement and help for this day. It is so huge.
I think of Hagar in these situations for single moms.
That is what any help becomes to them: The God who sees me.
Janey wrote:
Oh dear, don’t get me started. Not only is there that hidden problem but in some of them the person has to fill out a ton of forms and be counseled (because they might help someone who does not really need it because it is a mega church and no one really knows people personally there) but then it becomes a situation where the person needing help has to justify their divorce or their situation! It is degrading and humiliating as it is typically a single mom who has to justify why she never married or why she is divorced in order to qualify for help.
And all they were going to do is pay her electric bill that month. It really is ridiculous.
Anon 1 wrote:
Anon 1 — Amen. I’ve seen a single mother who lost 8 days of work — staying home with a sick child — forced through the benevolence fund inquisition. All she needed was $100 for groceries from a mega-church with an $83,000 benevolence fund balance. And the money had already been contributed by a couple who knew her situation intimately. I have no words.
About this married men and single women situation. I have been single, married and divorced, each for a fairly long period of time. There are specific difficulties for each situation. I am not unsympathetic to the issues people have. But neither can one be naive about people. For a single woman to be asking a married man to do things for her like hang curtain rods or changing the car oil is not a good idea. It may just be asking for trouble. One of my grandchildren has been in TaeKwonDo and the masters have always said to the students that the best way to deal with trouble is first of all do not put yourself in a position where it is apt to happen. I believe the scripture also tells us to avoid the appearance of evil. In other words, if you are a drunk do not hang out in bars, even just to use the telephone.
That said, people do need help. At my daughter’s church one of the divorce-care groups, for example, helped one of the single women get her yard under control. There was the mention somewhere that I read about where the local church had a car-care day in which the single women could bring their car and some of the men who knew about cars would do whatever. This way the work could get done, people could be helped, and nobody was put in any potentially compromising situation. And nobody could gossip that they saw what’s-his-name going over the what’s-her-name’s house and “you know what that means.” Come on now, you know how people do.
Nor for one last thought, maybe the married women who are avoiding the unmarried women are doing it because they know something about their husbands. Like maybe their husbands are biologically normal males and who knows what that might lead to. Just saying.
@ Jeff S: Right you are, sir!
@ Nancy:
“Nor for one last thought, maybe the married women who are avoiding the unmarried women are doing it because they know something about their husbands. Like maybe their husbands are biologically normal males and who knows what that might lead to. Just saying.”
Curious why this means that the married women have to avoid the single women. Can’t they visit them without their husbands along? And why then doesn’t this extend to other married couples? There’s still a woman in the other married couple, and husbands are “biologically normal males,” after all. His sex drive doesn’t turn off just because the woman in front of him is married.
@ Hester: Exactly!
People are people, no matter if they’re single, married, divorced, widowed…
@ Nancy:
This is insulting to so many different groups of people I don’t know where to start.
@ Phoenix: Very much agreed.
Nancy wrote:
Am I a biologically abnormal male because I can spend time with a woman and not have sex with her?
Nancy wrote:
If you apply this across the board, it would lead to people who never leave the safety of their homes and engage the world. But the church only applies it in certain areas like sex.
And who did this kind of thing in scripture? The pharisees. They established a lot of rules around the rules they really weren’t supposed to break and that became the new norm. And people were crushed by these rules.
It’s easy to say “don’t put yourself in a position of risk”, but when a consequence of not putting yourself in that position is that people are left out of the family of God, it’s not worth it. That is not what Christianity is supposed to look like. This single women is broken and alone, but at least you have your sense of propriety. Does that sound like Jesus?
Nancy wrote:
I would buy that if the same women went to work everyday with their husbands or if the husband never interacted with any women. Men are either trustworthy or they aren’t.
Jeff S wrote:
I’m with you, Jeff.
Nancy, I would add this: The situation is only as sinful as the people in it.
Is the woman a godly woman who happened to lose her marriage? Treat her as trustworthy until proven overwise.
Is the man a godly person who has never had an affair? Treat him as trustworthy until proven guilty.
It is shameful for Christians to treat a godly devout woman who has never had an affair as if she is already a prostitute.
What if your store’s grocery clerk called your bank to verify funds every time you wrote a check?
What if your local WalMart patted you down when you walked in?
What if you alone were fingerprinted when you picked up your child from Sunday school?
That’s how it feels. It’s disrespectful and condescending.
Jeff S wrote:
Exactly. I traveled with men for years staying in the same hotels, sharing rental cars, etc, with no thought of such a thing but tons of opportunities. They also knew I was simply not the type.
There is an obscure passage in Luke that gives us something interesting to ponder on this topic:
After this, Jesus traveled about from one town and village to another, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. The Twelve were with him, 2 and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out; 3 Joanna the wife of Chuza, the manager of Herod’s household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means.
Luke 8
So these women, married and single, were traveling around with men who were married and single and this passage does not tell us it was NOT ok? The Pharisees had a huge problem with it, though. :o)
Janey wrote:
Sorry but this is the thinking that men are not to blame because they cannot physically control themselves. This same thinking is the root of why Islam punishes rape victims for “seducing the rapist” simply by existing as a female. It is part of the “female bad, man innocent” thinking.
oops, Janey you did not write that but your name came up showing it as if you did~ Sorry about that.
Nancy wrote:
Nancy, Just to clarify, my focus was more on single moms who are working and raising children and in my experience most do not ask for help at all. I think we should seek to help them without them asking because they are usually overwhelmed and barely making it. If they don’t want help, that is a different matter.
-Have not read all posts on here since my last post – maybe later.-
Nancy wrote:
Both sets of attitudes/comments assume the single female will be receptive to any advances the man makes: that is insulting to me, a single woman.
If a married man propositioned me, I would tell him to get lost after telling him to remember his vows to his wife.
You’re also assuming that an unmarried woman will find each and every married man a burning hunk of hot good looks, when I have not as of yet in my life, seen a married man (in real life or on the internet) that I would consider all that hubba-hubba.
Married movie stars? Oh yeah, I’ve seen some real cute married movie stars, but I wouldn’t have affairs with them, either, if they made a pass at me.
Why would you assume I would accept a pass from a married man?
You’re also playing into other gender stereotypes, and when people do this, it bugs me. Your post assumes that all men are – well, I don’t know if I can use that word on this blog, it might send it to moderation queue.
This guy, who is now married, wrote a blog about it (the S word there rhymes with Tex):
I am not a S– Fueled Robot
Also, where you say:
“For a single woman to be asking a married man to do things for her like hang curtain rods or changing the car oil is not a good idea.”
The Bible does not forbid it. (“Thus saith the Lord: a married man shalt not hang curtain rods for an unmarried woman.”)
On the contrary, believers are supposed to help other believers.
Nancy wrote:
I agree but not for the same reason. The men who claim to be leaders should be asking the single mother if she needs help, not waiting for her to ask. That is what a deacon is supposed to be doing. And any woman who does not trust her husband could get off her duff and accompany him to hang the curtain rods and offer to babysit the kids or take her to lunch.
@ dee: Yep!
to add to both your comment and Daisy’s, I can’t understand why anyone would want to characterize men as being barely in control of their Inner Beast (or whatever) – it’s every bit as demeaning to men as are the assumptions about women made by the OP.
Nancy: o.O 🙁
Anon 1 — No harm. No foul.
This conversation is really about respect and identification. A single mother does have some household needs, but her biggest need after a divorce/death is “Do I still matter to my church and my community?” And “Do any of my friends now care if I live or die?” The sad part is that singleness no longer meets the Gold Standard of Evangelical Christianity, and so no, instantly a single person really don’t matter very much anymore to their Christian friends. Their secular friends are still there for them, however. —
Jesus went out of his way to make sure single women were seen as important:
• He talked with them in public
• He traveled with them.
• He talked to them alone.
• He taught them (Mary sitting at the privileged place for men only — at the feet of the rabbi)
• He healed them at great loss to his own reputation.
• He treated them with respect when others disapproved.
Jesus made sure people mattered. When married people shun a divorcee or widow, the message is clear: You don’t matter. You are now a threat.
We must imitate Christ.
Janey wrote:
The never- married adult women also are perceived as threats, as ‘s-x hungry’ man-stealers.
I apologize if I sometimes go on about how singles are treated when I’m on this blog (I do sometimes talk about other things when I visit here!), but at the very least, maybe some of the posts lately, like the one by Nancy above, go to demonstrate the jaw-dropping, nasty assumptions made by some Christians against never married, divorced, and widowed people.
There are good reasons why single people feel unwanted in the Christian community, or feel uncomfortable when walking into a church, and I think you’ve seen a few of those reasons on display in this very thread from one or two posters.
Attitudes like I’ve seen here, which assume I must be a harlot merely for being single, move me further from Christianity itself and/or Christian teachings on sexual purity.
I was waiting until marriage to have s-x, but since 99% of Christians think I’m already doing it (by mere fact of I am single and an adult), I guess I should cave in and start fooling around anyway (assuming I can find a decent guy to date – a single one, that is, I don’t snatch married men).
Daisy,
A few of the comments in this thread have made it very clear why singles often feel marginalized. The real irony is that these rude comments make your point much better than you could. 🙂
@ Daisy:
I feel your pain Daisy. I remember our worship leader wanting to invite the girl I sing with in “Steady On” to our church, but saying that a woman should do it because it would be inappropriate for us men. I think maybe he was forgetting that I was single at the time? He’s a good guy trying to maintain integrity (just like a lot of folks who do this kind of thing), but I don’t think he sees how this can hurt people.
At any rate, there’s so much tension and very few singles at the church. I must admit that I have recently compromised my values and tomorrow night am going out with . . . a LUTHERAN (just kidding, just kidding! Don’t shoot me Hester and Numo)
🙂
Jeff S wrote:
Unequally yoked? :o)
Jeff S wrote:
Make sure to visit that granddaddy of all Christian blogs, the venerable Internet Monk. Chaplain Mike, awesome guy, is now a pastor in the ELCA.
@ Daisy:
“Married movie stars? Oh yeah, I’ve seen some real cute married movie stars, but I wouldn’t have affairs with them, either, if they made a pass at me.”
Just had funny thought. My mother went out with a movie star once. I’m PRETTY sure he wasn’t yet married! 🙂
Anyway, she was not impressed. Good thing, too. Saved me from having 8 stepmothers! PS I believe said movie star is still acting, after a career of over 90 years…
(I still have not read any and all posts since my last one of yesterday here. I’ll try to get around to that, but may not be able to.)
Before I forget, I wanted to mention that one of the most famous ‘attempted-adultery’ scenes in the whole Bible was a married woman hitting on an un-married man, a single.
That story is found in Genesis chapter 39.
Not an unmarried woman making a pass at a married man, but a married person making passes at an unmarried person.
Jeff S wrote:
Hahaha! Have fun Jeff! 😀
@ Jeff:
“I must admit that I have recently compromised my values and tomorrow night am going out with . . . a LUTHERAN (just kidding, just kidding! Don’t shoot me Hester and Numo)”
Are you having hot dish and eggshell coffee?
@ Dave A A:
Mickey Rooney, right?
Hester wrote:
LOL, I don’t even know what that means? Am I a lost cause?
@ Phoenix:
🙂 Not many actors married 8 times and acting for over 90 years! And with a famous mouse named after him, if he’s to be believed!
There are many, many pages (news reports), and from Christian sources, detailing that a lot of married Christian men have pr0n (dirty web site/ movie) addictions.
Sometimes there are interviews with married women on the internet, and on Christian television shows, who say their Christian husband has a pr0n problem.
Here is just one example (this is about a Christian married couple):
“My husband was a pr)n addict”
(from “Today’s Christian Woman” / Christianity Today magazine)
I’ve seen many times that up to 80% of Christian men have a pr0n problem. (I’m not sure how much of that 80 is married vs singles.)
If you do a web search, you can come across many, many more pages reporting on how a lot of married Christian guys have affairs, use prostitutes, or enjoy looking at naked photos of women on the internet. There are also interviews with the wives of these kinds of men all over the internet.
There is also an infamous web site – I think it’s called Ashley Madison(?)
Yeah, Wiki has a page about Ashley Madison – site for married men who are looking for affairs.
That site’s sole purpose is for married men to go looking for hook-ups for flings.
I’m not sure who the ladies are who visit that site, if they are also married, single, or a mix of the two.
The Wiki page seems to say married women use the Ashley Madison site to have affairs with married men:
The point is, sometimes married men seek out affairs (and with married women, too, not only single women) – unmarried women are instigating all, or maybe not even most, affairs.
Not all single women will fool around with a married guy, either, even if the guy makes a pass at her.
I read an advice column where a single woman wrote in to express upset over a previous letter.
A married woman had written in suggesting she was afraid her husband may have an affair since his office was loaded with single women.
The married woman made some kind of remark about how it’s easier for a man to cheat with a single woman, as single women are ‘available.’
The single women who wrote about that was insulted, and I felt, rightly so.
She said she and her single women friends would never consent to an affair with a married guy, and just because she was single did not mean she was a harlot; she is not easy.
Perhaps even more disturbing than that were the other single women who left comments under the letter, who said they have been recipients of this attitude from married women and from married men. (I’ve seen it among Christians before.)
Some of the single women who left comments said they have been propositioned by married men who assume, just assume, that because a woman is single she will want to hop into bed with him because single women are just more – sleazy, I guess, or s-x crazed, or something.
These married men act confused when these single women tell them to bugger off, that singles are not s-x crazed bimbos who are desperate, all looking for a roll in the hay, especially not with a married guy.
A lot of people, Christians included, I am sad to say, need to learn that
Being a single woman does not = being “easy”
nor are singles more prone to s-xual sin than married women.
Well, my last post is in moderation.
One of the main points of it is that there exists a web site, “Ashley Madison .com,” where the sole purpose is for married men to seek out women (and it seems married women) to cheat with.
As far as I am aware, there is no such web site by or for single women, one where single women are looking explicitly for married guys to have an affair.
There might be one, but the most infamous is the Ashley Madison one. It was discussed in the news a lot over the last few years.
It’s not the unmarried women who are committing all the s-xual sin out there…
Some of these articles covering this story mention that site I mentioned above (“Ashley Madison”), the one where married people troll for married people to have affairs with. These articles say traffic/ membership to that affair hook up site has gone up in recent years.
Cheating wives narrowing the infidelity gap: report
The Psalmist said: ” The Lord is my pastor/shepherd.” PS 23:1).
Jesus said: “My sheep hear MY voice”. John 10.
The Apostles were quick to divest themselves of their initial authority, and later of their leadership as the church rapidly multiplied and spread. The Apostles always acted as a group and were open to consultation and debate before any major decision was taken ( see Acts 6, and 15 ). They wanted to ascertain the mind of the Lord as expressed through His individual faithful followers. Never do we come across a one-man show ! In no congregation are you likely to find all the gifts of the Spirit; how much less then in one man ! We need Godly men and women to guide the congregation, through the good example they set.
Functions performed in any congregation should be related to the faithfulness,experience,giftedness or the potential qualities of the individual person. No one is excluded from any service for the Lord because all are gifted in one way or another.
Leadership in a congregation does not result from exercising the authoritarian post of an elected office, but leadership flows from the faithful performance of the four major functions of any church….true worship; diligently searching and teaching the Scriptures; plenteous sowing of the seed of the Gospel message of salvation in Christ alone; and caring for and sharing the burdens of those who hurt. ‘Handsome is as handsome does’, should be the measure of leadership.
Jesus said : “Follow Me “.
I agree. We should all engage in pastoral ministries to one another, according to our opportunities and abilities. “Bear ye one one other’s burdens “. Galatians 6:2 b>@ A. Amos Love: