“To love at all is to be vulnerable. Love anything, and your heart will certainly be wrung and possibly broken. If you want to make sure of keeping it intact, you must give your heart to no one, not even to an animal. Wrap it carefully round with hobbies and little luxuries; avoid all entanglements; lock it up safe in the casket or coffin of your selfishness. But in that casket- safe, dark, motionless, airless–it will change. It will not be broken; it will become unbreakable, impenetrable, irredeemable."
CS Lewis
Dear Matt
Recently, you criticized an anonymous critic. You called him a narcissistic zero. I found this statement breathtakingly naïve and cruel but hesitated to take you on. Why? Because you were diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor last winter. I, unfortunately, know all too well the pain and devastation of such a diagnosis. One of my daughters was diagnosed with a large malignant brain tumor with an exceedingly poor prognosis at the age of 3. In fact, she was operated on at Dallas Children's Hospital, right near you.
For a number of years we did not know what course the tumor would take and spent many days and nights agonizing over her illness. It is a nightmare to watch your child suffer. Thankfully, she survived this illness and is about to graduate with a BS degree in nursing. Her sweet life was preserved and we are most grateful to God for His mercy to our family.
One of the most difficult assignments for me, as my daughter was growing up, was to treat her as a normal child. Many people make the mistake of overprotecting an ill child and bear the consequences of producing a fearful and dependent child who becomes an insecure and needy adult. So, I would hold my breath and allowed her to be a cheerleader with all of the frequent bumps of the head. We let her spend the night with friends and travel with other families. She is a self- assured young woman today as a result of us allowing her the dignity of being a “normal” child.
I have followed your medical course with great interest and have prayed for your healing. I have listened to your health update videos and have an understanding of how you perceive your disease. On one video you state that you believe that God has healed you and that you are going to live until 70. I pray that this is so.
I, on the other hand, had little such assurance during the early years of my daughter’s illness. I knew that God could heal her but that He doesn’t usually heal those who have such an illness. I have watched many children, who were prayed for, go home to Jesus. I learned to lean on Him and trust Him, no matter the outcome.
Consequently, according to your video updates, you have decided to live life fully. You continue to travel frequently and speak at conferences while at the same time managing a three campus church beset with issues such as a pastor who apparently overdosed on sleeping pills and died; as well as a church leader whose child has been diagnosed with a serious illness.
Frankly, I don’t know how you manage to lead your church staff, spend time with and love your church members, instruct and build up the church leadership and cope with a potentially life threatening illness while having quality family time. I remember my own husband telling me that he thought our train had “stopped” when our daughter got sick and that we needed to slow down and regroup as a family. Your energy seems boundless.
In light of your “full speed ahead” philosophy, I have decided that the greatest compliment that I can pay you is to respond to your pronouncements in an open and honest manner. In other words, I will not treat you as a sick, weak man. However, as only those who have been through potentially terminal illnesses can understand, you, as well as your family, will continue to be in my prayers as I pray for complete healing from this devastating illness..
As I have said, you lead a busy life, speaking at conferences around the world while managing a three-campus church in the North Texas area. Said church was once called First Baptist of Highland Village and is now called the Village Church. You are a member of an elite group of pastors who are involved with the Gospel Coalition and Together for the Gospel. You count CJ Mahaney and Mac Brunson among your many friends. According to those “in the know” your church is highly successful because you now have 5,000 members. And this, I believe, is a key to the problem that I perceive. More on that shortly.
Recently, “the Dawg” over at FBC Jax Watchdog posted an interesting video that you made. I had a hard time finding it so I have linked to his post. For those who are reading this, Dawg's post is worth a close read after viewing the video.
In this video, you are upset that you received an anonymous email that criticizes a particular action you have chosen to take. You call this person “spiteful”, “pathetic” and a “narcissistic zero”. Harsh words, indeed.
On your blog you said the following:
“As you can see, I am opinionated and that is what this column is based upon – my opinion. I respect other people's opinions and their right to disagree with me. What I don't respect is people who attack something, via telephone messages, e-mail, and letters, and then don't have the nerve to sign their name. I attach a byline to everything I write and I stand behind my work. I welcome criticism and opposing views, but to me someone who doesn't even have the conviction to sign their name to their words shouldn't even bother to put pen to paper.”
Matt, you have chosen to go public with your speaking and thoughts. I hope I am correct in assuming that you want pastors who belong to the Gospel Coalition to change the way they do business since you give them lots of suggestions and exhortation. You are the one who have chosen to go beyond your church to become a public speaker and I am going public with my concerns. This week, our formerly anonymous blog, will be publishing our names and contact information.
You blew a marvelous opportunity to disciple your email writer and ended up looking like just another one of those over-hyped, thin-skinned, ho-hum, authority junkies who take lessons in intimidation from the likes of “just punch them in the nose” Mark Driscoll types.
Here is the problem as I see it. You appear to believe that you have been given some form of special “authority” and that this means you can act like a tough guy when one of your church members gets out of line. I believe that the underlying reason for such attitudes stems from the fact that you are not functioning as a pastor. Instead, you perceive your task is to tell other preachers how to preach. You are on the circuit and it must be gratifying to receive such accolades from around the world.
But, are you truly a pastor? When does the discipleship happen or is it done "on the fly?" You have precious little time to grow in intimacy with those who come to your local church because you are rarely around. Running in to do the Sunday sermon is not the same thing.
Finally, someone in your congregation gets up the guts to write an email to you. He/she is a bit afraid of you, the pastor, because you are not really one of them. You are more like a television star, to be admired, not known. Maybe he or she got to shake your hand once after church. So the person takes a stab at an email.
You could have said the following. “I know that it took some courage for you to ask me this question. Somehow I have given the impression that I am unapproachable and for that I am sorry. I always have enough time to hear from you and I promise that I will listen and consider your request. You are precious to me and I love you. Please let me know when we can get together.” Then, since you say that it is easy to contact you, you could put your phone number and email on the big screen. Sounds nice, doesn’t it.
But, it is glaringly evident that you don’t have enough time for such niceties. You have places to go, talks and interviews to give and applause to hear. YOU DO NOT HAVE TIME TO BE A PASTOR!
So, instead you berate a member of your flock for having the temerity to question you in an impersonal manner. Did you ever think that the email was impersonal because you are impersonal with your flock? Do you really think that a person is a “zero” because he/she chose to email you anonymously? Matt, do you believe that Jesus would have called one of His lowly followers a ZERO? That emailer is a dearly beloved child of God who is struggling to figure out his church and his faith and you are too thin-skinned and too busy to give him the time of day.
Also, you may need to take a psychology course. Just like your good buddy, Mac Brunson, misused the term "sociopath" and demonstrated his ignorance via the newspaper (what a guy!) to the people of Jacksonville, it is obvious that you do not understand the meaning of narcissistic. A narcissist loves to see his name in lights. He is the type of guy who lives to hear the sound of applause and have people extolling the virtues of his name. In fact, he is the type of guy who is quite insulting to other people when his feeling are stomped on. This sort of guy is never anonymous. Perhaps you have met a couple of these in your travels?
Did you ever think that you may have created an atmosphere of intimidation because you don’t have the time to truly love and get to know members of your church? Could your frequent absences be perceived as a lack of concern and caring for those who are your primary ministry? Or are they your primary ministry?
As a formerly anonymous blogger, one of your pathetic zero types, could I give you a lesson in what is going on out here? There is a change in the church in America. We are truly in a post evangelical period. Far too many pastors spend time acting like CEOs rather than shepherds. The money is good out there for the ones who rise to the top and there is a pursuit of fame that is evident to us “little zeroes” out here.
Church success is measured in numbers and income. Pastoral success is quantitated by how many books and CD's get sold and how many conferences and speeches are booked. Meantime the "insignificant" people in the church are dying from creeping mediocracy.
Biblical illiteracy is on the increase, broken families are the new normal and children are leaving the faith in droves. Somehow, the mega church model has not resulted in deeper Christians. Instead it has produced shallow religionists with little idea of true discipleship. At the same time it seems as if the preachers are running faster and faster and getting nowhere fast.
Matt, there is a real possibility that you and the “leadership and authority” crowd have done nothing more that increase your own fame within your own circles. Does it ever bother you that people are asking the likes of John Piper to autograph the ESV Bible? What is that all about anyway?
I suggest that you try to figure out where you should be serving. Perhaps you should spend some time with those who love and care for you in your church. There are some “zeroes” that you need to get to know. Who knows, you may actually enjoy them.
Wow, Dee, what a powerful message. I believe you may have the gift of prophecy.
Did you listen to whole video? He talked about the time that he spent with the sheep who were going through horrible trauma or serious sin.
The time, singular?
Excellent message. I agree with Junkster in his analyis.
BTW: I felt Matt’s response to the anonymous letter was narcissistic. And you are right…it was a lost opportunity. As we are learning the hard way…pastors,elders, etc are to be AMONG the flock. Not over them.
“Did you listen to whole video? He talked about the time that he spent with the sheep who were going through horrible trauma or serious sin.”
As she pointed out, he is very busy…with all kinds of speaking engagements, etc. Is there no one else spiritually mature in his body to help others? This is a huge problem in these celebrity churches. We are all priests in the priesthood and are to grow spiritually and minister to each other.
BTW: I am a big zero, too. Becoming saved makes one realize that real quick. :o)
Darn, I don’t have a prophecy mike like they have over at SGM.Is it still a prophecy without a prophecy mike? 🙂 Thank you for your kind words, Junkster!
Change “spent” to “spends.” It was in the video.
Lydia
You and I are big zeroes who are loved 100% by our Savior. And I would rather spend time with a zero like you than a guy who thinks he is more than a zero any day of the week! Besides, you are far more fun!
Did you catch my drift in the paragraph when I described the actions and feeling of a narcissist? Certain pastors need to look at the narcissist in their own eye before pointing it out in others.
You guys are pretty funny tonight. First, he is criticized for not spending enough time with his people. Then, when I pointed out that he talked about spending time with people in the church in the video, he all of a sudden doesn’t have anybody else in his church who can care for other people. If you are going to criticize the guy, choose a lane and stick with it. You don’t get to have it both ways.
May I just point out one itty bitty detail? It was an audio recording, not a video. Thank you. 🙂
I found the original document and read the context that surrounds these words. Nothing excuses them.
But some of his next words floor me:
” So we show honor to our wives by letting their gifts develop.” – Yes, that is good, but then he says,
“I lose all the little arguments on purpose.”
How is that “honoring” to a woman to know she is “winning all the small arguments”?
I’ll be frank… I had a lot of respect for Matt Chandler until I heard this audio recording last week.
So Matt is mimicking Mark Driscoll by having people “text” in church… What I find so ironic is that Driscoll encourages texting in order to allow for anomymity; yet Matt goes ballistic about an anonymous e-mail? Perhaps the anonymous commenter should have submitted his/her concern via text message in church.
All this talk about ZEROS has brought back fond memories from my childhood. My 8th grade math teacher always called a ZERO a GOOSE EGG, and I have never forgotten it. Just label me a “NARCISSISTIC GOOSE EGG”!!!
It’s all too technical to me! :0
Heather,
I guess he goes for the jugular on the big arguments. I agree and find the statement condescending.
Before you jump on me, I’m in no way making excuses for the tacky words and attitude of Chandler. BUT I couldn’t help but notice the date on his little diatribe, October 2009. That was the month before he was diagnosed with an aggressive, malignant brain tumor. So could this have had something to do with it, or was he always a jerk by nature?
I also wonder if his experiences since then have in any way humbled him and caused him to appreciate his wife a little more since he’s had to be physically dependent on her. In that sermon(?) he said he’d be happy married to anyone, that his wife isn’t “the one.” I understood (and agree with) his assertion that we should not seek to be fulfilled by another person, but for him to say he’d be happy married to anyone… as if his wife was nothing special… as if they just happened to cross paths when both were ripe for marriage… makes me wonder how that makes her feel. Not particularly valued, I would think. He comes across like one of those guys who’d trade his wife in on a newer model if she begins to wear out. Like a car.
Hi notsatepford
I won’t jump on you. You have too many good ideas. However, if the brain tumor was affecting his behavior and speech, then he would need to clear this up. In fact, if it were affecting his mind, then there should be a lot of concerns that were raised in the months prior to the diagnosis.
The problem with his statement is that it is in keeping with certain behavior patterns that are common to a certain element within the faith, namely, the Calvinistas. So, as opposed to be surprising, it seems to fit with his overall philosophy as best as can be observed.
So, here’s the deal. If he explains to the critics that it was an outburst prompted by his tumor, then all is immediately forgiven and we would remove our complaint with a full explanation of the situation.
I, for one, have enormous empathy for anyone struggling with such a horrible diagnosis. But it would behoove him to explain the effects of his tumor on his mind so that his listeners can fully understand his struggles.
As for the woman/wife thing, his comments are in keeping with the typical Calvinsta, Mark Driscoll idiocy that has become acceptable within certain circles. It makes me shake my head.
Original document:
http://fm.thevillagechurch.net/resource_files/transcripts/200910251115HWC21ASAAA_MattChandler_ThePathPt07-SanctificationInMarriage.pdf
That’s what I said to someone in a longer, private comment about this. I would think if he wasn’t in his right mind (which should have been obvious to those who know him if he wasn’t) then Alvin Reid shouldn’t have posted that on the internet, but apparently The Village Church thought he was fine because they posted the transcript on their own site. I got the impression he was being his usual self, but since I don’t know him or much of his history, I’m not in a position to say if his medical issues could have been a factor or not. If I understand you correctly, you’re saying he was likely a jerk before. 🙂
I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for any explanation from Chandler.
P.S. Please check your e-mail.
justanotherzero,
Thanks for this link because I had not read the transcript.
When Matt stated the following: “I’ll be very honest with you here. My wife Lauren, she’s just a girl. And I could be married to another woman and be happy” MY HEART SANK!
Notice how he refers to his wife as a “girl”, while describing another possible mate as a “woman”. Hmmm…..
Upon reading this, I got a REALLY BAD FEELING!!!
I immediately went to the church web site, which I have NEVER visited before. http://northway.thevillagechurch.net/websites
Take a look at the recommended web sites, particularly the third one from the bottom. As Dee would say, “EGADS!!!”
Village Church Recommended Web Sites
9 Marks | http://www.9marks.org
Acts 29 Network | http://www.acts29network.org
Best Commentaries | http://www.bestcommentaries.com
Desiring God | http://www.desiringgod.org
Monergism | http://www.monergism.com
Sovereign Grace Ministries | http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org
The Gospel Coalition | http://www.thegospelcoalition.org
The Resurgence | http://www.theresurgence.com
Scott, when a celebrity pastor talks about all he is doing…I tend to zone out. Since I worked around celebrity pastors for many years…I certainly understand what is really going on. But I have learned to be understanding that others will never get it.
I am a huge Matt Chandler fan. Well, I am a huge fan of his sermons. His exegesis is typically right on, and his ability to speak is truly a gift from the Lord. I remember the “just a girl” sermon, and if I recall correctly, he was pointing out that there is not one “God’s Perfect Life Plan for Me”, and if you miss it, you’re doomed. I was not personally offended, because I completely agree – the Lord is sovereign!
Matt is no Mark Driscoll, but he is a young preacher and talks like one. He is not John MacArthur or David Jeremiah or James MacDonald or John Piper – not even a wanna-be. Also, from what I have heard from his sermons over the last year or so, he is the “Lead Teaching Pastor”, which infers to me that there are other pastors who help tend to the (healthy) flock. In fact, he mentions 90 full-time employees in the audio clip. They are run by elders (of all ages), and although Matt sits on the elder team or whatever, he has said himself that he is not the one running things. Maybe I can find that in a transcript somewhere – if I do, I’ll post the link.
I am NOT taking up for him. I don’t know him. I have just listened to many hours of his preaching. I personally have not noticed a difference in pre or post diagnosis preaching. I HAVE noticed Matt’s busyness increase. Perhaps the tumor has shown him the short time span of our opportunity to do God’s work here on earth.
The comment about letting his wife win all the little arguments doesn’t personally offend me either, because I let my husband win all the little arguments. =) There are too many better things to do than argue about dumb stuff with your spouse, and it shows my spouse that I prefer him over an argument. Well, I hope it does.
And finally, back to the original problem. I cannot fathom why ANYONE would call another soul a “zero”, even an anonymous soul. And in public, from the pulpit. I disagree with the name-calling. However, Matt was responding to a rude, accusatory, anonymous email. Jus’ sayin’. Yes, he could’ve handled it more gracefully, but one thing I can say for sure, Matt Chandler is not graceful. But he is the recipient of Grace, as are we. I’ll continue to pray for his healing and for his ability to shield himself from the “Calvinista” movement in the future. Hopefully hanging out with those folks listed by website above won’t bring him down to their level.
I have read through the transcript of Matt’s sermon and agree with much of what he said. The way he rebuked husbands/fathers for not helping their wives with the responsibilities around the house and with the kids was spot on!
It’s just that I get annoyed when men refer to the other gender as “girls”. I much prefer “ladies” or “women”.
“Notice how he refers to his wife as a “girl”, while describing another possible mate as a “woman”. Hmmm… ”
And not only a girl but “just a girl.” Ugh.
Re the link, EGADS! is right! Birds of a feather?
“The way he rebuked husbands/fathers for not helping their wives with the responsibilities around the house and with the kids was spot on!”
I liked that part, too.
Scott
Blogging can be confusing with so many people and names. That being said, I have not changed on anything I said in this post. I still say that a pastors cannot run around and do as many things that Chandler is doing and NOT have something suffer. Why is it that pastors now feel that their job description involves running to conferences, frequent speaking, writing books, etc. Something ‘s gotta give and I have seen it happen in other churches.It’s usually the primary church members that are neglected.
Hi Trinity
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. You said “I HAVE noticed Matt’s busyness increase. Perhaps the tumor has shown him the short time span of our opportunity to do God’s work here on earth.”
I often wonder how we define God’s work. Is it running to conferences and giving speeches, most of which will be forgotten minutes after the next guy starts talking. Is a teaching pastor’s function just that, teaching? If so, why not just play a video of some great teachers and forgo a pastor? It would be a heckuva a lot cheaper.
Or even wenches. 🙂
Check our about us page tomorrow!
Oh, I forgot about the prophecy mike. Paul made it plain in 1 Corillianicans 21:65-66:
“And every girl who prays or prophesies without a prophecy mike dishonors her lips — it is just as though her lips were without lipstick. If a girl does not wear lipstick, she should not have her teeth whitened; and it is a disgrace for a girl not to have white teeth.”
You forgot to add verse 67: “Red lipstick on teeth is cause for the church to gather and throw her out, like the scapegoat, to the fashionistas.”
“What a tragedy when any woman thinks more of paint than purity, of vulgarity than virtue, of pearls than principles of adornment with righteous adoration, of hose and hats than holiness, of dress than duty, of mirrors than manners! What a tragedy when any woman sacrifices decency on the altar of degradation — visualizing the slimy, the tawdry, the tinseled!”
Who said that? (No Googling.)
O glorious wenches! 🙂
“His exegesis is typically right on, and his ability to speak is truly a gift from the Lord.”
About his exegesis… maybe; maybe not. I’ve not heard enough of him to form much of an opinion, but if I read the word “unpack” used in that context one more time I’m going to throw my computer across the room!
Bono?
#*&X@!#!
Its actually kind of funny. You can trace the conferences these guys have been at by watching the use of certain key words across the Calvinista spectrum. I think I heard Mahaney and Platt both use this. They need to get a thesaurus.
Not even close.
Piper is my guess. =)
Kind of like the political “talking points” you hear on all the Sunday morning network talking-head shows.
Nope.
All that alliteration sounds like a certain former pastor of a certain mega church in Memphis…
You’re close to spontaneously combusting!
Just trolling down memory lane.
Cher?
🙂 Hardly.
“elders (of all ages)” What? You do know that elder means older, right? I know, I’m off topic, but I couldn’t resist correcting the blaring contradiction.
“I am NOT taking up for him.”
Are you sure, because…?
“I disagree with the name-calling. HOWEVER, Matt was responding to a rude, accusatory, anonymous email. Jus’ sayin’.”
and
“Yes, he could’ve handled it more gracefully, BUT one thing I can say for sure, Matt Chandler is not graceful. But he is the recipient of Grace, as are we.”
So, you disagree with name-calling, in general, but since the email was rude, accusatory, and anonymous, then Matt is justified in being rude and accusatory, himself? Just asking.
So, since Matt is not graceful, but just a recipient of grace, like us all, then he’s justified in not being graceful? Would you take up for the emailer then…I mean, since the emailer is not polite, do you defend his rudeness?
No, let’s be honest here, you ARE taking up for him, even though you say you’re not. After all, you are a huge Matt Chandler fan.
When they get that intense about an anonymous letter it seems it hit a nerve somewhere. why not simply ignore it?
“So, since Matt is not graceful, but just a recipient of grace, like us all, then he’s justified in not being graceful? Would you take up for the emailer then…I mean, since the emailer is not polite, do you defend his rudeness?”
Michael, you are DARING to enter the celebrity Christian double standard zone. (cue twilight zone music).
BTW: All you zero’s are having entirely too much fun on this blog! You made me choke on my protein shake this morning.
Junk: Wenches?
Dee: Bono?
Adrian Rogers?
I totally had to Google it. Completely surprised. And it was a LOOOONNNNNGGGGGG time ago! Never even heard of the guy, and I’m from Memphis! =)
Junkster knew, and no, it wasn’t Adrian Rogers. Yes, Dr. R.G. Lee, pastor of Bellevue Baptist Church in Memphis from 1927 to 1960. That was a quote from his infamous sermon, “Payday Someday.” I’d heard of R.G. Lee and this sermon forever. He’s somewhat of a legend, not only in Memphis but in the SBC. I’d never read or heard it. Needless to say I was completely surprised. You need to watch it and listen to get the full effect.
R.G. Lee bio:
http://www.sermonstore.org/rg-lee/auto-bio.html
Listen to “Payday Someday”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNoMuCspTKE
Read along:
http://www.newbbc.accura.net/Payday%20Someday.pdf
I am humbled by the knowledge of many on this blog. Stepford, thanks for the quiz. BTW, I think you should start a blog and feature some of this along with certain websites…you know what I am saying.
Junkster, you are awesome. I had one more guess:Paris Hilton. Darn!
I am pretty sure that Trinity was using “elder” to refer to the biblical office and not to a person’s age.
Love the “Preview” feature and HTML tags. Thank you! Now, which emoticons can we use?
In honor of your “coming out,” I present you with this official “Ladies of Wartburg” portrait.
http://www.newbbc.accura.net/Wartburg%20Wenches.jpg
Excuse me, I am NOTastepford.
Scott
However, Michael’s point is a valid observation of many churches. I have seen elders in their 20s who have been Christians for a short time but are selected because the church wants to appear “hipster.”
You are hereby “banned from this blog!” LOL. Junkster has a far better view on what we look like.
http://img709.imageshack.us/img709/6568/wartburgtingle.jpg
NOT a stepford
You are about as far away from a Stepford as can be imagines and that, friend, is a compliment!
Oh, look! I found another emoticon we can use! 😛
I’ve seen churches with “elders” who had neither physical nor spiritual maturity. A more descriptive term would be “richers”, as financial success seems to be these churches’ key criteria in selecting elders.
“Junkster has a far better view on what we look like.”
In your dreams, I’m sure. 🙄
Scott:
I know that Trinity was referring to the office. She, like many, do not understand that the office of an elder was to be filled by those who are elders, indeed; those who are older. That was the whole point of my comment.
The word means older. And in I Peter 5, Peter gives instruction to the elders, then in contrast he says, “You younger men, likewise…”
So, to sum up for Trinity’s and your benefit, elders are not of all ages, they are older.
Junkster and Dee:
Well put. I love the term, “richers,” because seldom will someone see a middle class blue collar worker as a deacon or elder.
Ok, Michael, I get you. I of course understand that “elder” means an old guy, but at the Village Church, they apparently do not have an age restriction.
The Village Church Staff & Elders
As I said, they are call called “elders” and they look to be from mid-20s to maybe 60ish.
And to be perfectly clear, I do not excuse Matt or his anonymous emailer from being rude. I truly meant that I was not taking up for him for that diatribe. My own pastor has said things from the pulpit about detractors being anonymous – gets under his skin, for sure (Lydia, not sure why and I agree – should be ignored!). Obviously, I agree that some times, one must be anonymous to protect one’s self and/or family from harassment, but there’s no reason to call names or be rude. Ever. God says so.
“Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear.” ~Ephesians 4:29
😀
The people around me always wonder why I’m snickering at my computer… hee hee… 😛
Ya’ll are having WAY too much fun!!!
I took my daughter (who’s a freshman in college) out to lunch and then for her one-to-one session at the Apple store, and I should have been following this on my Blackberry.
We’re somewhere in between those two “Ladies of Wartburg” portraits. I love the sense of humor!
TrinityWatcher:
I addressed your remarks because, while saying you were not taking up for him, you were following your statements with qualifiers and statements that seemed to justify his behavior. But, I’ll drop that.
Regarding elders, to be clear, these guys on the link that look like they just got out of high school, are we in agreement that they are not elders, biblically? Do we agree that the church erroneously calls these men elders when they’re not?
And my impression, from listening to the clip was, Matt is probably not an elder, since one of the qualifications of an elder is temperance? The recording seems to show that he is not temperate. But I don’t know him and that may have been completely out of character.
Junkster
Could you check to see if you got an email from me? I am checking to see if I have the bugs worked out. Thanks
nice gossip column you have going here.
“nice gossip column you have going here”
How can it be gossip when we use Chandlers own words?
Remember, follow Christ not young cool hip pastors.
Rob
You have fallen for the spiritually abusive tactic called “call it gossip.” This is used to shut down people who raise a legitimate point of view. Chandler called someone a narcissistic zero. Are these the words of Jesus or just another guy who has gotten, as my mom used to say, “Just a little too big for his britches?”
Gossip is designed to hurt someone. Legitimate critique is meant to change a situation. It is our hope that by exposing such things the Christian community and pastors will reevaluate their words and lifestyles.
Finally, Matt is a big boy. Anyone who puts himself into the public eye should expect criticism, just as we do. He can handle it just fine and so can we.
This is probably the dumbest thing I have read in a long time. With over 5,000 members do you expect him to eat dinner with each of them? How do you afford to have that many people over to your house for dinner? How do you have time to go to each house when you have not just a sunday service to preach in but multiple services. Matt Chandler has other people who wortk with him who go out (along with him as well) and pastor the individuals. Maybe you should get your facts strait before you judge.
Bryan
The pastorate has become a celebrity speaker service and not just in Chandler’s church but throughout the US. If you have read this blog, you will see that we have made suggestions as to how to become a community instead of just another community organization.
Have you ever questioned why a church should have 5,000 people? Do you really think that this sort of system builds a close knit fellowship or do you revel (as it seems you do, sorry if I misunderstand) that “our church is successful because 5000 people attend.” This is an American phenomenon in which numbers equate “spiritual” success.
Your pastor does far, far more than prepare a sermon to give on Sunday. He is traveling all over the world, speaking at conferences and “pastoring” pastors. Where are the priorities? I think he should consider slowing down and hanging with his people first before running around the world being “successful.”
Dumb? I’m not so sure…but I thank you for taking the time to engage us. We appreciate all comments because it means that at least people are thinking through the issues and not just accepting what they are fed, either by us or by others.
I stumbled across this blog earlier, and to be honest, I have not read through the various topics that you have posted on this site. However, this one caught my eye.
I want to first say that I am serving as an Ordained minister in a very small church, that is totally in the opposite spectrum of what one would call a “megachurch”. From the tone of this blog, it seems there is a lot of skepticism and negativity towards churches who are in the “larger” numbers.
And to be honest, I can understand. There are many mega churches who seem to be in some weird cultural bubble that has nothing to do with the gospel of Jesus Christ. Prosperity is preached, but not the gospel. In our materialistic culture, that draws large crowds.
However, I want to try to help clear some things up. I stumbled across the Village Church’ ministry a couple of years back. I attended a conference where Matt was speaking (what you call pastoring the pastors), and I was floored with his ability to point people to the God of the BIble. God was able to move through matt’s message that night on many that were in that room, and I can tell you that it was a eye opener for me.
I tuned in to the Village Church podcast, and have been a listener since. I have been blessed not only with Matt’s pastoral role and preaching, but also by the village church as a whole. Dee, In saying all that, I would like to try to extend some healthy criticism your way. Here are a few points:
1. Just because the V.C. has 5,000 people does not make them a church where they do not have community or healthy-spiritual growth in Christ. On the contrary, I have heard amazing testimonies from Matt and other pastors there about Home groups and the spiritual/missional focus many have in community together there.The VC is growing tremendously, not just in number, but spiritually! How do I know this? Take some time to listen to the testimonies of the Village in how they pray, the ministries they are a part of, and the fruit of the church. It seems you have not done this, and you are assuming much!! The VC is not your “typical” prosperity church!
2. Matt is not the only pastor–He is the Lead Pastor! Matt is part of a group of elders in the village who may serve as pastors, teachers, and various leaders in the church. They follow the biblical model of eldership. These elders work to lead the people of the village church the best way they know how according to biblical leadership. Is it perfect? No, they will tell you that, but they strive to build community in the church. Within this eldership, Matt is held accountable. More on that below.
3. The Village Church tries to build community by having home groups, sharing testimonies, promoting missional efforts, facilitating counseling groups such as recovery for those who are in a season of repentance from various issues..I could keep going, but the point is that for a large “megachurch”, they are doing a fine job of promoting community. Don’t assume that they do not have spiritual success there!!
4. You said: “Your pastor does far, far more than prepare a sermon to give on Sunday. He is traveling all over the world, speaking at conferences and “pastoring” pastors. Where are the priorities? I think he should consider slowing down and hanging with his people first before running around the world being “successful.”
As a ordained pastor myself who has been “pastored” by Matt’s ministry, talked to Matt in person, and been to several conferences where Matt has preached, I have been encouraged, inspired, convicted, and educated with God working through Matt Chandler and the Village Church. How are you so certain that Matt should not be doing what he is doing in his travels? How are you so sure that Matt is in error and that this is not what God wants him to do?
Could it be that God actually uses Matt in his speaking engagements? I am fruit of this. Am I and other pastors who have been blessed by Matt delivering a solid-Gospel-God Glorifying message not a priority?
Matt is not doing this to be “successful”. Matt is doing this to preach the gospel to pastors and people who have lost sight of the gospel in their ministries. Matt is preaching messages to people like me who are in very small churches, reminding us that sometimes God does not grant 5,000 member churches, but we are to preach the gospel faithfully anyway!
I think if you actually listen to a number of Matt’s podcast, you would not be making the blatant assumptions you have been making on here. The fruit of Matt Chandler is not that he is wanting to do this for fame or success…he is consistent in preaching and proclaiming the exact opposite, and quite frankly, that is an inspiration and encouragement for people like me.
As far as his church is concerned, Matt will tell you right off that the village church is not about him…and it is not. That is why they have several ministers on staff to lead, preach, and shepherd the flock. Of course Matt is available to oversee and pastor, but he is not the only one fulfilling a ministerial role. The Village Church is not left without a pastor, and Matt does much more than preach on Sundays.
5. Finally, this whole article was about Matt calling someone a narcissistic zero. A few thoughts, and I am through….
1. Someone writing any kind of anonymous email or letter that attacks or complains about situations within the church should be confronted. It is cowardice to do such things, and frankly, not very beneficial for the church as a whole.
2. Matt was out of line with his comments which you have rightly shown here, but I think this was sort of blown out of proportion. Again, if you would actually spend some time to listen and research the Village Church and Matt’s sermons, you would encounter Matt confessing that he says many things that are out of line. Sometimes, in Matt’s preaching, he takes it a little too far. Matt acknowledges this.
And guess what, he has a group of fellow elders who are not afraid to confront him about this! Matt submits to their counsel. The point is, we all step out of line when we are passionate about issues, and Matt is obviously passionate about this as would I.
Although I am sure this was an attempt to show Matt the error of his ways, He has a council of elders who have already beaten you to that.
Dee, I don’t know you, but I want to encourage you to consider getting to know the ministry of Matt Chandler before you start to criticize. You made some assumptions that do not line up with the V.C. or Matt Chandler. Although I understand the purpose in exposing the negative, I want to encourage you to research a bit more and expose the positive. The V.C. and Matt Chandler have been used by God in many ways. Yes, continue to criticize when needed, but do not forget to encourage and lift up our churches and leaders when they are bearing fruit. I can assure you, if you look, you will find fruit.
In Christ,
Adam
Adam
Thank you for your heartfelt and passionate letter. You have made your case well, and I find much about your letter compelling. Matt Chandler sure has lots of friends 🙂 I am still trying to figure out why almost two months after posting this, TWW suddenly gets comments. Did a memo go out or is it just a strange, coordinated “moving of the Spirit?”
As you can well imagine, I have thought about this issue and others long and hard. I did so for years before starting this blog and saw things through my eyes that I wanted to share with others. I’ll try to take a stab at a point by point explanation.
Megachurches/Accountability
I was once a member of a good church that had 4000 members. I watched the church grow from 400. However, my pastor worked so hard to be a pastor to his people first in spite of his well known lineage. He is the son of Stuart and Jill Briscoe. Pete made his congregation his first priority and was always available to talk. He demonstrated to me how to be a pastor not a speaker. Yes, I believe, in general, mega churches have not done much to advance the faith. Anonymity reins and there is great difficulty in building a true community. Look at the polls of Christians out there. Christians are getting dumber and have little understanding of what they believe. Yet, we keep doing the same thing over and over.
Megachurches also allow for the personality pastor to run the show and have little accountability to the congregation. I disagree that “elders” always hold the pastor in check. In fact, many reports seem to indicate that elders are chosen for the ability to “protect” the pastor and keep the little guy in the congregation from getting in the way of the pastor. The pastor is to be protected from those who might slow things down for the agenda. My prediction: Within a generation, there will be a return to smaller, more intimate communities.
Anonymity
TWW began as an anonymous blog. You have posted a simple first name which provides you with a modicum of anonymity. Why? TWW supports anonymity. That’s when the mask is removed and deep down feelings are revealed. You know, the ones that are too hurtful and painful to tell others. Perhaps the person has been beaten down enough and needs to let out his feelings. Surely you believe that, even in VC, there is sin and pain. I have watched it in other churches as well. One of the reasons we came out with our names is to speak for those who have been deeply wounded by churches. We are nobodies in a world of celebrity speakers. We are one voice calling out to the church to show compassion instead of arrogance. And we allow anonymous criticism and try to take it like big girls.
I would hope that you would read about what happens to people when they criticize a pastor. This blog is replete with examples of retribution by pastors. I know you want us to be “positive” but we are here to sound an alarm that there are serious issues that need to be dealt with in the church.
Matt Chandler is a big boy and so are you. Once again, I would encourage you to think about a Christian response to anonymous critique. There is a coarseness that has entered the church. Some pastors act like school yard bullies. Take a look at Mark Driscoll for one. They have the program in mind, and anyone who gets in the way is looked at as a “problem” not a dearly loved member of the church.
Chandler has shown how he would respond to criticism. You can bet that no one who isn’t someone would ever criticize him after this response. Problem solved? I think there is a possibility that the Holy Spirit has been quenched. I do not think Jesus would have ever called an intimidated and hurting follower a “zero.” Please look at our suggestion in the post as to how he could have handled this. And, BTW, I think there is a possibility that his lack of presence in Dallas has contributed to this disconnect which leads to a lack of community that would encourage open and honest communication.
Positivity
Please read our series on spiritual abuse. Often times only pastors are allowed to point out the negative. If a member in one of those churches points out something negative, they are given a lecture on their sin nature. This is a tactic which is meant to stifle those who might raise concerns. I highly recommend the book, The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse, to both pastors and congregation.
The congregation is supposed to shut up and get with the program. What happens when the Holy Spirit convicts one of the little people that things need to change? Be positive, not negative is part of the playbook of the new “anointed” pastor crowd. There are very few people who will stand up to the new self assured pastors and that is what this bog is about. The few that do get beaten up and called names.
If you want positive, scroll to the bottom of this post. We are encouraging people to read through their Bible in one year and are providing links to make that happen.
Pastor to the pastors:
I don’t know if you realize that you made my point for me. First, I have listened to some of Chandler’s sermons and I have still come away with this opinion. Note that I said I have listened. How? On the internet, just as you have. So, why does he need to travel so much? Why does he need to speak at serial conferences? Why not put out his material on the web, start a Q+A page/helpline for pastors and stay put in Dallas? With today’s web access, many companies are eliminating conferences, etc. to save money and time. Imagine how much more contact he could have with the members of his church if he was present.
A pastor, even a “Lead” pastor is still that, a pastor. Once again, he sounds more like a well reimbursed part time pastor. His church has the right to make that decision. But I wonder about something. How many people think that this sort of thing is normal because of our “success” oriented culture? Americans worship celebrity, success, money and numbers. Then they come to church and get exactly that. Perhaps church was meant to be something more.
Adam, here is what I hope for you and perhaps it is already true. I pray that you will be a real pastor and that you will really know and love on your people. I pray you will respond with grace and kindness to criticism just as Jesus did. I pray you will spend time to love the unlovely, the nobodies, the average, and the hurting. I pray that every person in your church will know that you care deeply about them and I also pray that they will know more about the faith than those in most mega churches. May God’s grace be upon you today. Thank you so much for your input.
Adam,
I want to say that I totally understand where you are coming from. But what you are not counting on is time. I have seen it all too often at my age and working with mega’s the last 20 years. They start out great…but time and growth does something and I believe that is where Chandler is heading. I saw it too many times.
Ask yourself something. Why grow the church larger and focus on the spirituality coming from the small groups, etc. Why not plant new churches, instead, from that growth? There IS a reason. And it is not a pretty one.
Chandler has been catapulted to minor celeb status in the past few years. He has his illness which also brought a huge outpouring. (I always wish this outpouring were for non celebrities, too, but that rarely happens)
Give it a few years. Most people like you focus on what these guys were like in the beginning of their rise to fame. Celebrity changes people. I have not seen one single person it has not changed. But I have met a few who walked away because the Holy Spirit convicted them to.
Dee and Lydia,
Thank you for responding in kindness! I will respond to each of your thoughts.
Dee,
No memo has been sent out 🙂 I was simply looking up some info on David Platt in regards to his book radical, and I found a link to this blog. Stumbled onto here, and came across the article on Matt Chandler. Usually I don’t respond, just read…but I felt compelled to write this.
You see, I totally believe in the healthy criticism that you guys are doing here. No, I haven’t read all the articles, but I can tell you want to honestly confront certain issues that are arising in the church. I commend you for that, but I also think you want to be honest in your assessments on these issues.
As I love the church, (As Jesus Does) I want to not only criticize the bad, but also point to the good–If there is good fruit developing in our churches, I think fellow Christians should celebrate in that. (Did Jesus not do this in his address to churches in Revelation?) This is why I am on here, to help point you guys into the good fruit of the Village Church—-I don’t necessarily want you to ignore the bad, or act like everything is “a-ok”, but I do think you should exemplify the positive fruit if you are going to point out the negative.
Dee, On your thoughts about mega-churches, I totally agree that most attendees in mega-churches have problems in their beliefs, knowledge in the faith, and are truly getting dumber in their spiritual walk. In fact, one could argue that they look nothing like the church at all. Most mega-churches exemplify a prosperity gospel-seeker friendly nonsense that does nothing to advance the Kingdom of God and is quite contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Most mega-church pastors like Joel Osteen clearly are in it for their own kingdoms.
Let me say this the best way I know how….The Village is nothing like those churches!!! If you have listened to the Village Podcast (which you said you do) you would know that Matt actually is quite disheartened about these types of mega-church leaders and mega-churches. The leadership at the Village want nothing more than to teach SOLID BIBLICAL THEOLOGY and lead those to the TRUE GOSPEL of Jesus Christ!
I would not listen to Matt Chandler or have respect for the Village if it was any other way. Trust me, most mega-churches make me really queasy inside..and according to what I have heard Matt Chandler say, it does for him too! (More on the mega-church stuff in Lydia’s response below)
Ok…as far as his accountability with the Elders, I have no reason to doubt that they hold him accountable. He has shared many stories in his messages about being confronted by his fellow elders over speaking out in turn (which is what he did in this situation) and taking things to far. They confront him according to how they should in the bible. No, they will not dismiss him for something like this, but I guarantee that he is chastised about it. I have no reason to doubt that there is a lot of accountability and prayer between those guys. In their situation, it is needed! I respect Matt because he admits when he takes it too far, and adds that the elders have confronted him over certain situations. Unless Matt is a blatant liar, they are lining up with scripture in how this should be handled!
As far as your prediction, that may very well be so. One can hope for smaller, community based churches in the future, and I have seen the benefits because I am in one, but I still think God uses larger churches.
You said, “Matt Chandler is a big boy and so are you. Once again, I would encourage you to think about a Christian response to anonymous critique. There is a coarseness that has entered the church. Some pastors act like school yard bullies. Take a look at Mark Driscoll for one. They have the program in mind, and anyone who gets in the way is looked at as a “problem” not a dearly loved member of the church.”
Thank you for your encouragement. I went back and thought about anonymous critique, and maybe the following will help clear up what I feel about all this.
In essence, I believe it is necessary for one to be anonymous when they have a HEARTFELT, GENUINE, PAINFUL CONCERN and for whatever reason, they do not want their name to be known.
It could be that someone is offended over what some staff member, elder, teacher, or Matt Chandler said in the church. Maybe they want to bring a CONSTRUCTIVE CRITIQUE to the matter, but do not want to risk hard feelings from those they are critiquing, so they leave their names out. If the latter takes place, then yes, I can see the importance in being anonymous.
HOWEVER, the person critiquing Matt Chandler in this situation was not bringing any kind of constructive critique in the situation. In fact, it was an attack on the church that brought no solution to the table. This person may have been hurt, but he/she seemed to attempt a hit and run tactic that honestly is not beneficial to anything whatsoever. Responding to the Village encouraging open dialogue between it’s members through texting (something that promotes community) by saying it’s a “last ditch effort of a dying church to encourage the next generation” does not seem very constructive! This person was not hiding because he/she was hurt, it seems this person was hiding because it made him/her feel powerful to attack the church without a face. It seems rather cowardly.
I understand Matt’s frustration with this matter, however, I do not agree he should have responded like this in the pulpit. He, in many ways, is no different from the person sending the email. He responded in a less than constructive way. I didn’t listen to the full sermon this was on, but it seems this was just a rant in the middle of his sermon. I am sure he probably regretted this if he listened to the podcast later (I know I would have). In my opinion, the person writing the email should have offered a critique that was less of a hit and run attack and more of a genuine concern to resolve the “problem” he/she saw at the Village. IN the same way, I believe Matt was wrong and should have responded to this person with much more grace.
Bottom line, if you want to critique, do so without silly little attacks that have no constructiveness to it whatsoever. And if you are attacked, respond with grace!
I agree that guys like Mark Driscoll can be tough to handle. I don’t really like Mark Driscoll, but I recognize him as a Brother in Christ. He should be called on several things, and has been called in the past with his attitude. To me, Mark Driscoll is arrogant. It practically bleeds out from this guy. However, Matt Chandler to me is not arrogant. He is passionate, and he comes across as abrasive in his sermons. For some, they can’t handle this. For me, I sort of like it. The first time I heard Matt preached I was thankful he was not a seeker friendly pastor. (On that note, can we really say that guys like Peter, Paul, Prophets in the OT, and even Jesus did not have a tendency to get passionate and abrasive to those around them??)
Matt is human. Sometimes, his abrasiveness gets carried away and he gets into the flesh…plain and simple. To say that we all haven’t been there before would probably be a bit of a lie.
About Positivity:
I am not sure if you got my whole “be positive” thing. Once again, I am not talking about ignoring the negative in the church. It is good for us (iron sharpens Iron) to confront each other as fellow believers. As I said, the Village understand this, hence the eldership role at the village in confronting their pastors when they step out of line. HOWEVER, we should also lift each other up and encourage each other! Is that not biblical as well? The Village has some amazing things going on that is not about numbers. Awesome, Kingdom of God stuff is happening there and we need to encourage them as a church in that. Matt is preaching the Gospel in passionate-unashamed ways in a world that all too often sells the gospel short for some “Seeker-Friendly”, “Prosperity-Gospel”, “Watered Down Jesus”..And for Matt to be in a mega-church and still teach the Gospel in the way it should be taught…..Profound!!
I wanted to encourage you guys to do just that. It discouraged me to read all of this and notice that you basically ignored the GOOD of the Village Church. We need to balance the good with the bad if we are going to critique.
Finally, you said, “So, why does he need to travel so much? Why does he need to speak at serial conferences? Why not put out his material on the web, start a Q+A page/helpline for pastors and stay put in Dallas? With today’s web access, many companies are eliminating conferences, etc. to save money and time. Imagine how much more contact he could have with the members of his church if he was present.”
The best answer I know how to give you is that Matt feels compelled to preach the gospel to all nations. He gets to travel and speak at conferences and fulfill a role that many pastors would like to do: proclaiming the gospel. I don’t believe it is about success, money, or fame for him. Sure, he may be tempted in that, but I sincerely believe he wants to teach the Gospel as it occurs in the bible to all peoples, including pastors. IN a world that has lost touch with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Matt is willing to preach it unashamedly in it’s raw form. Pastors need to hear the Gospel preached like Matt preached it….I needed to hear it preached like that! Sure, we can listen to it on the internet, but at these conferences I got to speak to Matt face to face many times. He get’s to connect with the people, and this is not a time to sign autographs. For him, it is a time to proclaim the Gospel and to talk about Jesus. For that, I respect him.
I can’t necessarily speak for Matt, but I truly believe He is being obedient to Christ’s command to spread the Gospel. Not everyone gets invited nor has the opportunities that Matt does to preach, and it may be Matt’s conviction on his heart that God wants him to go. Was the same conviction not on many of the apostles?
As far as him not being home—I feel that Matt is able to have sufficient time to serve at his church and serve his role as a Pastor, but quite frankly, it is not his “one man show.” There are other capable pastors at the Village who fulfill the pastoral role. Not to mention the countless other things I mentioned in the previous post. Everyone has a part to play, and I believe, based on seeing Matt at some of these conferences, that God is using him in these travels. So to answer your question, I believe the answer is simply that God has called him to do it.
Dee, I do appreciate your final words to me. I strive to be the best pastor I can be, and rely on God so much to be that. Pastoral ministry is tough, and so many of my fellow ministers abuse their role. I hear what you are saying, and I thank you for your heart for those who are hurting. We need more people like you in our churches who are willing to look at the people that Jesus spent most of his time with. As far as Chandler is concerned, He made a mistake, but I think he is also a pastor who is concerned about such things. If you don’t believe me, then take some time to look at their ministries, what they have done, and what they are doing. If it wasn’t from Matt’s obedience to follow God in this matter, I seriously doubt the Village would be doing this. I have been blessed by it, and I hope you will too! Thank you again for your encouraging words!
Lydia,
Too avoid making this EXTREMELY long post even longer, I hope I can quickly respond to your thoughts–
1. I hear your overall point…It seems success, fame, and prosperity is used by the enemy to tear down something that God meant for Good. It happens often, especially in mega-church leaders. Although I cannot say what will happen to Matt Chandler, his testimony and heart seems to be far from the destructive road that so many megachurch leaders end up on. It could happen in the future, but I certainly hope not!
You said, “Ask yourself something. Why grow the church larger and focus on the spirituality coming from the small groups, etc. Why not plant new churches, instead, from that growth? There IS a reason. And it is not a pretty one.”
I asked myself this, and I have a answer for you. The Village Church has and IS planting churches! In fact, I listened to one of Matt’s sermons TODAY and heard him talking about the Village planting a church in Michigan. He encouraged his congregation to pray about this and join in this plant if God leads them.
A couple of weeks ago, Matt discussed planting another church in Texas that will not be associated under the umbrella of “The Village”. He practically begged people in the Village who are commuting from that area to LEAVE the Village and join that church! Who would have thunk it!! Could it be that a mega-church pastor is actually telling members of his congregation to consider joining a new church plant!! I have never seen Joel Osteen do that!! All joking aside, the Village is planting churches. These are not the only two.
Quite frankly, I think the idea of a mega-church scares the mess out of Matt Chandler, but if you listen to the story of the Village Church, it is quite evident that God is involved in this growth. By the way, The Village Church has three campuses in or around Dallas—1. In Flower Mound (near Highland Village I think) 2. The Denton Campus 3. The Dallas Campus
Each are a part of the Village, but unique components of the Village. They are not trying to take control of Dallas, but I believe God is working in and among them.
It is common today for people to confuse “all megachurches” and lump them together in one and the same bowl, but I sincerely believe that the Village is far separated from churches like Joel Osteen leads in. The Village is teaching the bible well, going on mission, promoting ministries within the church and the community, relevant to today, reacting to God’s movement within the church—a side effect of that, they have exponential growth that Matt Chandler and company could have never expected. As he says often, this was not some crazy plan he worked out—it just happened.
Again, I could spend A LOT more time talking about this, and if you want me too, I will! But I hope I have made the case for you that Matt Chandler and the Village Church is not your typical mega-church company. Sure, it is tempting to think that, but I do not think they fit the bill according to their fruit. Take a few hours listening to the podcast sermons and you may actually be surprised. Trust me—I was!
Lastly, just because a church has high numbers does not necessarily mean that they are off base! God may very well want the Village to operate in that way. Who are we to question what God wants? Can you honestly, really say based on your experience that the Village does not have a thriving spiritual community? Have you ever listened to the testimonies that come out of the village? I have, and I can tell you, I am glad that God has raised a church like this.
Ok..I am seriously tired of typing! Sorry for the extremely long post, but I hope you see my concern in putting the spotlight not only on the blemishes of the church, but the beauty as well. Since your conviction is to critique certain issues within the church, my encouragement to you as a fellow brother in Christ is to never forget the churches beauty. If you criticize any local church, look as well for the beauty they have (if they do not have it, then by all means just criticize). Remember, Christ is in love with his bride, as beaten up and ugly we are, but He has made us beautiful. If a local congregation is a part of Christ’s church, then there is always beauty to behold!
In Christ,
Adam
Adam,
Welcome to The Wartburg Watch! I just wanted to chime in and express my appreciation for your comments. I hope you will continue to follow our blog from time to time and share your thoughts with us.
Blessings.
“You said, “Ask yourself something. Why grow the church larger and focus on the spirituality coming from the small groups, etc. Why not plant new churches, instead, from that growth? There IS a reason. And it is not a pretty one.”
I asked myself this, and I have a answer for you. The Village Church has and IS planting churches! In fact, I listened to one of Matt’s sermons TODAY and heard him talking about the Village planting a church in Michigan. He encouraged his congregation to pray about this and join in this plant if God leads them. ”
That is not what I am talking about. Why not plant churches instead of having 2-5000 members in one place? What is the point of that? Is it because that leader(s) is specially anointed and no other people can emerge to be overseers?
What is the point of that for any church? What is going on in the hearts of those leaders that want those large numbers in one place?
“Lastly, just because a church has high numbers does not necessarily mean that they are off base! God may very well want the Village to operate in that way. Who are we to question what God wants? Can you honestly, really say based on your experience that the Village does not have a thriving spiritual community?”
This would be way too lengthy to go into but yes, I believe these monstrosities INHIBIT spiritual growth. Most definitely. I have seen it over and over and it happens with guys like Matt.
I was very pro mega for many years until I really started studying the NT models. Most mega’s use Acts after Pentecost as their model for a very large church. But there are a ton of problems with that. First of all, Pentecost happened when it did because many regional Jews were in Jerusalem…it was always packed during Holy Festivals, etc. They would even camp out outside the city walls. And this trek they made, they might stay for weeks attending both Passover and Pentecost before going back home.
But the point was, they eventually went back home. The church in Jerusalem did not stay that large. When we think of the church in Corinth or the church in Phillipi, these were made up of many house churches who thought of themselves as ONE church. In fact, how can people really know each others needs and spiritual maturity when there are 5000 people in one building? Mega’s know this and that is why they promote small groups. Why not make the small groups, churches?
The answer to that question is because people follow man instead of Christ. They are there for “Matt’s” spirituality. And that is what I fear.
There is absolutely NO WAY the leaders of these mega’s can keep from being worshipped by the pew sitters. It is a natural outcome of the worldly structure and traditions of men.
And it is a crying shame.
Lydia, I know Mark Dever’s been spoken of negatively on this blog a few times for associations deemed less-than-savory, but I think he’s one fairly charismatic personality who has managed to teach his people that he isn’t the center and that they should get serious about the business of church plants (partially because he is adamantly, structurally opposed to multi-site churches). When people try to defend megas by saying that it just “has to happen that way” I like to point them to the plants coming out of Capital Hill Baptist. It doesn’t have to be this way.
Deb,
Thank you so much! I will definitely come back to share thoughts with you all!
Lydia,
I see your point, and pretty much agree. I do think Matt, much to his leading and teaching against this, can easily be worshiped. I do not like this scenario, but this doesn’t just happen in mega-churches, this could happen in any church. (I am sure the apostles were worshiped and early church fathers as well). So many people place pastors on a “super-spiritual” level that almost looks like worship. However, it tends to happen in megas more due to the “celeb” status of those preachers. All I can tell you here is that Matt strongly encourages and preaches people to NOT do that. Matt wants them to see that God is most valuable, not anyone else. Other than disappearing of the face of the planet, there is not much more Matt can do.
Honestly, I don’t think Chandler nor the staff at the village expected the growth that they have encountered. Matt went into a declining Southern Baptist Church and worked with those believers who did not want to give up on their church, and God just moved.
When God moves and works, people come (and some leave). The book of Acts is a testimony to this. One reason why they have so many people is because again, they are multi-site….This probably would have never happened, but two churches in different areas basically deeded their property over to the village because of various reasons. The Village did not spend great sums of money to go multi-site…it just sort of happened.
Also, much (church-wide) prayer and consideration went into this period of the Village’s history…so one can hope they were being led by God in this.
All that aside, I don’t think Chandler and company particularly like the Mega-church scenario. The point of my last post was that Matt IS serious about planting churches. They have 3 local bodies already in 3 different areas that consist of the Village, and they are actively involved in church planting all across the U.S. I believe this is so because they realize the struggle in building community in their church, and they want to do everything they can to use the growth they have to build more church communities. This should be applauded, because I don’t know of many mega-churches that do this.
In fact, the last time I talked to Matt Chandler in person, he was talking to me and a couple of other guys about church planting. The Village can and will help sponsor a church plant, and I do believe the Village encourages their own people to be involved in this!
In reality, the Village could easily plant more churches with their size…and I hope in the future they will do this. However, it may be relatively difficult to ask people to move from a place they are comfortable to be involved in to a new church plant. I know from experience in planting churches that it is hard work. Many people (laymen) do not like to be involved in the early stages of church planting because it is not an established church. Maybe this is why the Village still has their astonishing number in spite of their efforts to church plant.
Lydia, I hear your heart in this. I too agree wholeheartedly that there is a fear to follow man instead of Christ, especially with guys like Matt. If that were to happen, it could inhibit spiritual growth. For me personally, I have been encouraged by Matt to follow Christ more, to be more passionate in my own preaching, and to have a greater view of God than the relative American view of God. Men of God always point others to follow Christ more, and I believe Matt is doing this. I have seen no evidence to say otherwise. This all comes from podcasting—I am not even involved in the community at the Village.
I hope that those who are a part of the village will catch the vision that Matt seems to have, and that is not the Kingdom of Matt but the Kingdom of God. God help them if they do otherwise.
I also hope that in the future church plant communities will come to fruition not just in the village but all over. Could it be that God has raised up churches like the Village to do what others have not done–to sponsor nation wide, even world wide church planting efforts. The Village has the resources to do this, and they are doing it. It would be nice to see them turn their small groups into churches….maybe one day this could happen.
That is an intriguing thought..and too my knowledge, I don’t know of many churches who have done that. You could be on to something Lydia… 🙂
Watcher said,
“I know Mark Dever’s been spoken of negatively on this blog a few times for associations deemed less-than-savory…”
Mark Dever is the one who introduced C.J. Mahaney to Al Mohler and Ligon Duncan, as confirmed by Duncan on the T4G blog several years ago. Those associations are what brought C.J. into the mainstream.
Sovereign Grace Ministries is one of the most hyper-authoritarian ministries out there, and we can only assume that since Mark and C.J. get along so well that Mark is approving of SGM’s modus operandi. I am continuing to follow what’s happening in SGM churches like KingsWay and will provide an update for our readers soon.
FYI – Mark Dever graduated from Duke one year after I did; however, I never knew him. Maybe we passed each other regularly on campus.
One Sunday at the beginning of my sophomore year I visited Blacknall Memorial Presbyterian Church, where I understand Mark regularly attended. Blacknall was close to my dorm on East Campus, and had I chosen to worship there we likely would have become acquainted. Instead, I often attended Duke Chapel where Will Willimon served as Dean of the Chapel. It’s definitely a small world…
It is even more of a shame that woman will not be free to function in the FULL inheritance of salvation/sanctification in Matt’s church plants.
” hope that those who are a part of the village will catch the vision that Matt seems to have, and that is not the Kingdom of Matt but the Kingdom of God. God help them if they do otherwise.”
Adam, it is statements like this that really scare me. Every single true believer has the indwelling Holy Spirit Who gives Christ followers a burden for the lost. It is NOT about ‘vision”.
That’s an interesting statement. I think I know where you are going with that, but to be sure, do you mind explaining?
How is the Village Church keeping woman from being involved in the full inheritance of salvation/sanctification?
Matt teaches comp/pat doctrine.
“Adam, it is statements like this that really scare me. Every single true believer has the indwelling Holy Spirit Who gives Christ followers a burden for the lost. It is NOT about ‘vision”
I agree with this. I should have stated that a little better. My point is that Matt’s heart is not for his own fame or success…it is for the glory of God. His “vision” is not for the success of the Village—it is for the glory of God. I sincerely believe that based on what I have gleaned from the ministry at the Village. I attempted to say (but failed) that I hope the Village shares Matt’s heart–that they will glorify God in everything! That His Kingdom is more important than anything else.
If that is the case, then I do not see them worshiping Matt. They will worship the only One who deserves worship. And yes, I do believe the Holy Spirit gives all believers the capacity to have a burden for the lost and a burden to glorify God.
I will be away from my computer soon the rest of the day, but I hope to continue this conversation later.
Yes, he does teach complementary doctrine. (I think that is what you meant).
I am not sure how this will keep woman from their “full” sanctification. because are we not sanctified through Christ. Nor their full inheritance from Salvation, because that again comes from Christ. Again, I may not be following you.
As far as I know, the Village does not have women in eldership within the church, and they follow what they see as biblical grounds to do that.
Matt teaches the about the role of women and men as ascribed in the bible. ( I have heard some excellent sermons from him on the role of men in direct referral to loving your wife as Christ loves the church) He doesn’t leave any out of the picture. However, various opinions arise on exactly how this should be taught.
I would be interested to hear your take on this. I realize the traditional view held by the church is not at all popular today, and many churches have different ways of looking at it.
Like I said, I will be away from the computer most of the rest of the day…but I hope to be on later tonight or tomorrow…
Adam
You are such a thoughtful man and, once again, cause me to look deeper. I am heartened to know that Matt speaks out against the prosperity gospel. I heard him say this “If your people are worshiping Christ because of what they can get out of it, you have lost orthodox Christianity.” (How’s that for a positive moment? 🙂
I want to go deeper on this matter of the person who criticized via text. “Responding to the Village encouraging open dialogue between it’s members through texting (something that promotes community) by saying it’s a “last ditch effort of a dying church to encourage the next generation” does not seem very constructive! This person was not hiding because he/she was hurt, it seems this person was hiding because it made him/her feel powerful to attack.”
First point: How do you know that it made him “feel powerful to attack?” Motivation is very hard to judge. What if he actually thought this to be true? I am not sure this is an attack on Chandler as it is an attack on the issue of texting during church? Perhaps this person is just fed up with the trendiness that is not necessarily edifying to the church? In some respects, I might actually agree with this person. I am not sure that “texting builds community.” Driscoll started it with his service and now everyone jumps on the bandwagon.
Second point: Let’s assume that your comment that he wanted to be powerful by criticizing anonymously. Maybe he is an angry hurting person who wants to reek havoc on VC. How do you think Jesus would have responded? I am calling for radical Christianity which means to turn the other cheek and love on someone who might not be so secure and tutored in the social niceties of church. Why not just love the person? I think Chandler should have invited the guy/girl to meet with him over coffee, in a neutral setting and listen deeply and love graciously. He would have probably made a friend. Instead, we seem to do what any ho-hum Donald Trump might do. Call names and never, ever try to understand. My guess there is much more behind this person’s comments.
You like David Platt as do I. He encourages us to be radical. Radical is not defined by a hip way to do church. It is defined by an unexpected response to the status quo. Love when hurt, Live among the poor….
I still think Chandler blew it big time but maybe he will learn from this
“The best answer I know how to give you is that Matt feels compelled to preach the gospel to all nations. He gets to travel and speak at conferences and fulfill a role that many pastors would like to do: proclaiming the gospel.” Wait- I thought he was preaching to pastors? Don’t they know the Gospel? Also, don’t all pastors proclaim the Gospel? Or is proclaiming the Gospel to local folks less important than proclaiming it “the world?”
All nations? I lived in Dallas for 11 years. All nations are represented there. It is a truly international community. I actually volunteered for the Office of International Affairs while there. I spoke with so many nationals and had a ministry through this outreach.I was even introduced to and spoke with the King and Queen of Spain and still have a letter from Mayor Kirk thanking me for being there.
Why is teaching via podcast any different that flying into a conference and standing up and teaching in person? Now, we can text-as you say. He could real time answer the questions and still be at home. Did you know that the old Soviet Union was overthrown via the Internet communications over a far flung empire?
Also, when the Apostles travelled in Acts, they stayed in the area for quite awhile, actually discipling the churches. This flash in and out and give a talk thing is not exactly the same thing. I still think the conference thing is a way for many celebrity Christians to make bank-pushing books, podcasts, speaking fees, and free travel. Could it be that this is what most pastors would really like?
I know you think I am a curmudgeon and that Chandler is wonderful. I have not spoken out against Chandler’s preaching or theology although I think I would disagree with him on the role of women and teaching as you can well imagine. My comments were based on his unfortunate response to a church attendee. I also analyzed his response based on a number of factors such as his frenetic lifestyle. I think there amy be some truth in what I say.
I’ll sit back and watch what comes from his ministry and continue to pray for his healing. We wrote a nice article on David Platt and Francis Chan. Maybe I might do one on Chandler one day, who knows?
Thank you so very much for your challenging words.
Watcher
I think Deb hit the nail on the head. Dever spends way too much time with Mahaney and has been very supportive of SGM. I have not seen any changes in the SGM structure as a result of this. In fact, it has deteriorated if what I read at survivors sites are any indication. True men of God don’t let their good friends beat up on the flock. So, for now, I have a tainted view on Dever.
Adam/Lydia
Lydia is one of the most eloquent expositors on the role of women I have ever read. This ought to be a fascinating conversation. I actually hope that a conversation will ensue. You both are great writers and thoughtful Christians which makes it even better!
“I would be interested to hear your take on this. I realize the traditional view held by the church is not at all popular today, and many churches have different ways of looking at it.”
It is not about what is popular. It is about being exegetically correct. And the problem starts in how they interpret Genesis. There is NO prohibition in the OT against women teaching or leading men. But they want me to believe there is a prohibition AFTER the Cross.
(There ARE no specific “roles” for women. A “role” is something one pretends to be. We are to abide in Christ. If were are specific “roles” then Joanna in Luke 8 was in horrible sin yet Jesus said nothing)
Thanks Dee. I am humbled by your opinion. And Adam is a delight to talk to. I appreciate the fact he does not use ad hominem.
Lydia and Dee,
It has been a delight to talk with you both as well! The more we talk and the more I read, the more I sense your heart on various issues, and it is so encouraging!!
Although I realize most of my posting has been to hopefully expose some of the “good fruit” with the Village Church and Matt Chandler in general, I do understand and even agree on the nature of why this article was written.
Dee, I too am encouraged that he speaks out against the prosperity gospel. It is encouraging for a mega-church pastor to do so, when so many seem to fit the prosperity bill.
Let me try to respond to your points, without writing another gigantic post..(*sorry about that by the way) 🙂
You said, “First point: How do you know that it made him “feel powerful to attack?” Motivation is very hard to judge. What if he actually thought this to be true? I am not sure this is an attack on Chandler as it is an attack on the issue of texting during church? Perhaps this person is just fed up with the trendiness that is not necessarily edifying to the church?”
Truth is, I don’t know. According to what we know, the email “seemed” to come across as an attack..Whether on the issue of texting, the village church, or Matt—it seemed like an attack. You are very right…motivation is hard to judge.
It is possible, in my opinion, that this person got really ticked off, hurt, or just offended at the texting idea, and he popped off an email to release some frustration. The reason I said it seemed he/she was doing this as a “power-trip attack” is the hit/run tactic and with him/her with-holding their name.
If he/she was frustrated, hurt, or offended, then I think he/she should have written a more constructive email to address the issue than to approach it by saying this was a “last ditch effort of a dying church.” There are always better ways to critique something. In this case, I think this person may have been a little wrong. (however, I have not seen the email, so Matt may not have been describing the whole context of it.)
You Said, “Second point: Let’s assume that your comment that he wanted to be powerful by criticizing anonymously. Maybe he is an angry hurting person who wants to reek havoc on VC. How do you think Jesus would have responded?”
Jesus responds in different ways many times. If this person is “JUST” an angry, hurting person…then I think Jesus would respond in love, but that is to assume this person is just angry and hurting. Jesus responded to the pharisees by calling them whitewashed tombs. a brood of vipers, etc etc…Could this person sending the email have a heart of a pharisee rather than just an “angry, hurting” person…That too I think is possible, considering the email. I have encountered many over the years whose fruit have exposed a heart such as this. It could very well be this person heart as well.
Regardless, I do agree Matt blew it in this situation. He should have assumed a position of love. I still think he should confront the issue of sending hit/run attack emails, but not in the way he did. I agree, an email back..a cup of coffee with this person..anything would be better than what happened.
Here is my thought, if a Christian member of the VC or any church is offended, hurt, frustrated, or angry over something, then I think that person should try to work it out with the leaders of the church…not just pop off a non-constructive email..This person was an adult (it seems) and could have easily handled this better himself. And the same goes for Matt.
(I love the book Radical..I am assuming you read it..Good stuff!)
You said, “Wait- I thought he was preaching to pastors? Don’t they know the Gospel? Also, don’t all pastors proclaim the Gospel? Or is proclaiming the Gospel to local folks less important than proclaiming it “the world?”
Matt preaches to pastors a lot in these conferences, and preaches in other events as well such as Student Life Conference for teenagers. I wouldn’t say that all pastors proclaim the Gospel, some proclaim what they think is the gospel..but it ends up lining closer to the “prosperity gospel” or other nonsense such as that. We have many in the pulpit who think they are preaching the gospel but have little to no clue what they are teaching…it is quite common in my area….as I get a lot of people from other churches who have been taught some funky things that have nothing to do with the gospel!
Truth is…it is encouraging to hear the gospel preached with the passion that Matt preaches it…It is not a topical sermon, “debt is bad” sermon, “your best life now” sermon…”how to grow your church” sermon…it’s just the gospel…And at conferences that teach so many of those sermons..it is good to hear the gospel in raw form!
Matt preaches the gospel to Christian leaders and pastors in much the same way that Paul writes his letters to Christian churches with the Gospel packed in it. The Gospel is encouraging..it motivates..and it brings the right perspective to our leadership. It helps us to understand that it is not about us…it is all about Christ. For those pastors who are out of line, hopefully through Matt’s preaching they are corrected.
The sermons I have heard Matt preach to pastors have the gospel within it, and are very gospel oriented (as all his sermons seem to be.) Of course, he encourages pastors in other ways..such as teaching us to be faithful and lead well no matter the context we are in..It was encouraging to hear a guy like Him “NOT” talk about “how you can grow your church to 6500 plus)…He just talked about serving and leading well.
You said, “All nations? I lived in Dallas for 11 years. All nations are represented there. It is a truly international community.”
I am not that familiar with Dallas, but I do know that there are local mission endeavors throughout the village in the Dallas metroplex. Chandler I am sure has been involved in that…but when you get invited to Australia to speak the gospel to Aussies, or get invited to Africa to speak the gospel to men and women there, or go to China to encourage “secret church pastors”, or go to Atlanta to challenge and encourage pastors In America like me…would you really deny going?? I trust Matt would if God told him too, but I think the contrary is happening. I believe God wants him there. And that is why he has gone to those places. The Village can, has, and will survive with Matt leaving to go to these places!! The Village is NOT about Matt Chandler.it is God’s church, and I think God is big enough to sustain it while Matt is on leave in much the same way God is going to sustain Francis Chan’s church as he departs for his mission endeavors.
You say “Why is teaching via podcast any different that flying into a conference and standing up and teaching in person?”
To me…It’s kind of like taking online classes vs in-room classes…Online classes basically are the same thing except lacking the connection one get’s while being in the classroom.
Sure, I listen to podcast..and I could do a “seminar” on podcast…but at the end of the day, I enjoy getting away once in a while with a fellow brother or sister in Christ…joined with hundreds-thousands of other fellow members of Christ…where I can worship freely..hear other men and women of God teach..and maybe get a chance to connect with a guy like Chandler and talk about the greatness of God.
In many of these conferences..they have “break-out” sessions that are a bit more intimate and more “community like”. The first time I heard Matt Chandler preach was in one such session..and God convicted me greatly that night along with others in that room through the message that was given. The session ended at like 8:00..and people were still there around 9:00 praying with one another, talking, and seeking God.. Matt was involved in that…NOT signing autographs or pushing book sales, but encouraging and edifying his fellow brothers and sisters in Christ..
I gained instant respect for him then, because that is a rare sight.
You say, “I still think the conference thing is a way for many celebrity Christians to make bank-pushing books, podcast, speaking fees, and free travel. Could it be that this is what most pastors would really like?”
Yes, I do think this is what they like, but I don’t think Chandler fits in here. At all the conferences that I have heard him in, I have not heard him push a book sale, podcast, or any other crazy thing like that… I can’t really tell you about the speaking fees or free travel, but he doesn’t seem like the kind of guy that lives and breathes off of this stuff…..I mean, the dude has brain cancer…have you heard him speak about it? He speaks as though he is at total peace although he may lose the battle and leave behind his beautiful family….Why? Because he is a guy who lives by what he preaches…God is His utmost in affections, and He knows that God is sovereign in this situation…
He doesn’t seem like a guy who gives a flip about a speaking fee check.
You say, “I know you think I am a curmudgeon and that Chandler is wonderful. I have not spoken out against Chandler’s preaching or theology although I think I would disagree with him on the role of women and teaching as you can well imagine. My comments were based on his unfortunate response to a church attendee. I also analyzed his response based on a number of factors such as his frenetic lifestyle. I think there may be some truth in what I say.”
Dee..to be honest, I do not think you are curmudgeon…I think you are looking deeply into a mistake that Chandler made and are raising fair questions and concerns about it. I think you are cautious about his status as a “mega-church” pastor and assume that he may fit into the rest of the fold as a “celebrity pastor”…I understand your caution…Trust me..I was too. It is my hope that I have pointed to the fruit that i have witnessed in the ministry that God has called him to lead at the village, and show that not all is bad and withered…As a pastor myself, I understand the importance of encouragement..and I hope a site such as this can be an encouragement when good fruit is found in churches, but also hold churches accountable when bad fruit arises!
In a world of un-healthy and off-focus mega-churches…the Village seems to be on the right track..but they are not perfect…no church really is. By the way, I have read the article with Francis Chan and David Platt…and was encouraged by it! I have been encouraged by other articles as well…You all are doing a great thing here..and I hope to add my input when I can.. (although I definitely need to stop writing books!)
Thank you again Dee for your kind words! It is so refreshing to have an engaging conversation without throwing stones at one another!
Lydia,
You said, “It is not about what is popular. It is about being exegetically correct. And the problem starts in how they interpret Genesis. There is NO prohibition in the OT against women teaching or leading men. But they want me to believe there is a prohibition AFTER the Cross.
(There ARE no specific “roles” for women. A “role” is something one pretends to be. We are to abide in Christ. If were are specific “roles” then Joanna in Luke 8 was in horrible sin yet Jesus said nothing)”
Ok…I am not quite following you on the Joanna example..Could you explain this further..It is rather late here while I am typing this so I may “get it” tomorrow, but it might be better for you to go ahead and explain it.. 🙂
Again, I am intrigued about this conversation. For years I have wrestled with a proper approach on how to handle this. I understand the “traditional” view, but wonder if it is exegetically correct. I realize that a lot of the “proof text” on these issues may be explained with a lot of cultural factors that were taking place in the first century, but I haven’t ruled the traditional view out yet either.
If it is not too much to ask, I would love to hear your take on this in greater detail.
Since a lot of this context has to do with Chandlers teaching of this doctrine..I will pull something I found out of one of his sermons…I would love to hear your response to it…
———————————————————————————————-
a) Objection: You have left out the many significant examples of female
leadership in Israel, in the gospels, and in the early church. It is
simply not correct to say that the Bible exhibits a uniformed
pattern of religious male leadership
Response: Yes women do play a significant religious and at times
leadership roles throughout the Bible. But two things to consider: 1)
Most of the examples of female leadership appear in roles other than
those of the highest religious authority. That is, there are some
prophetesses, and female teachers in the Old and New Testaments,
but where are there any women priests, woman heads of tribes of
Israel, woman kings(Athaliah wrongly usurped the throne), woman
apostles(Junia of Romans 16 is highly disputed,) women elders in
the church? The point is that at the highest level of human religious
authority, the Bible gives a clear and consistent picture of male
leadership. What about Deborah? Given the state of Israel at the
time, most see Judges not as illustrating well God’s Ideal for His
people. Quite probably, then, Deborah’s judgeship demonstrates,
not how God endorses female leadership, but rather just how far
from God’s designed purposes Israel had strayed. In any case, it is
difficult to accept Deborah’s position as normative, in light of the
overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
—————————————————————————————————-
You can look at the whole link here if you want–
http://fm.thevillagechurch.net/resource_files/study_guides/20070204TheRoleofWomen.pdf
I do not have much to debate here..because i am totally open on this issue…Although I lean towards the traditional side.. simply because I want to follow scripture the best way possible…Yet, I am still not fully convinced either way….If someone says that the “traditional view’ is not exegetically correct..I am ready to listen…Maybe this conversation with you will help this.
Thank you Lydia!
Whew! Adam, that is asking me to take years and years of study and boil it down in a blog comment! I can try but please keep in mind there is a lot that will be left out. One thing I have really been convicted of is “sound bite” Christianity. It is a horrible thing and I think proof texting is the culprit.
My main theme is that we must stop being Christian groupies and start being Bereans. (Speaking as a former groupie who had her favorite “teachers”). Just so you know, I do not believe scripture supports our traditional view of “pastor” at all. I also believe our traditional man centered view of church structure inhibits spiritual growth of believers. Most pew sitters will not grow spiritually past the person on stage. They have been taught they are the spiritual authority and they believe it. But we know that Jesus Christ told us He would send us the Best Teacher: The Holy Spirit! Who illuminates the truth of the Word to us if we study and pray.
Continued…
“Ok…I am not quite following you on the Joanna example..Could you explain this further..It is rather late here while I am typing this so I may “get it” tomorrow, but it might be better for you to go ahead and explain it.. ”
Ok, understand my background is in training and marketing and I was very involved in Christian marketing circles. So, I was big time into the comp marketing world. I saw lots of contradictions, mental gymnastics and scripture twisting to maintain a position that is untenable and can logically only go the route of legalism. (In other words, one needs a Talmud to follow the rules, roles and formulas of comp/pat teaching. And it becomes legalism because we are to abide in Christ…not play a “role”)
Now, with that said, I heard about specific “roles” for women for years. Different groups claim specific roles and not all are on the same page. But we can agree that most comps say a wife supports her husband in his work.
Joanna was not doing that. In fact, she LEFT her husband, Chuza, at home and was traveling with Jesus, the Rabbi and His group, and supporting Him financially out of her resources. We do not know if she had children. We are never told if Chuza, who worked for Herod, agreed with this or not. It was simply reported as fact. No editorializing about roles or improper behavior. I find that interesting considering the “specific roles” that comps teach for Christian married women.
(We find the same “reporting” as normal in 1 Corinthians 11 where Paul “assumes” women are praying and prophesying in a mixed group of the Body. Yet, that passage is foundational to comp doctrine where they proof text horribly a bad translation of Paul discussing the cultural problem of headcoverings in the Body of Christ!)
Lydia/Adam, I’ve been following your conversation with interest. Recently after years of study came across this view that I saw called “soft complementarianism” that appears to be an attempt at being consistent with the verses that complementarians get their position from without veering into legalism. Seemed really intriguing.
“Response: Yes women do play a significant religious and at times leadership roles throughout the Bible. But two things to consider: 1)Most of the examples of female leadership appear in roles other than those of the highest religious authority. That is, there are some prophetesses, and female teachers in the Old and New Testaments,but where are there any women priests, woman heads of tribes of Israel, woman kings(Athaliah wrongly usurped the throne), ”
Matt is making the typical mistake here of using OT scripture in a wrong way. Would you agree that Polygamy was God’s intention? If not, then why do we assume Patriarchy was His original intention? After all, not only did God allow polygamy but in certain cases it was demanded in the law. Why?
Or, should we understand that God was working through depraved sinful people for His own purposes and Glory? We simply must stop holding up David or Abraham, etc as paragons of virtue. They weren’t. If someone did what they did…. today, we would be appalled. Still, God used them for His purposes. God is the hero of the OT, not David or Abraham, etc. And such characters are not excuses for bad behavior today as so many pastors teach.
Another thing that must be pointed out about the OT is that God was extremely angry that the Jews wanted a king. He was their King. But they whined and wailed so He gave them a king and lots of suffering came from it.
What can we learn from this? That it is good to have a king? No. We learn that now Jesus Christ is to our king. Not our husband. No human is to be our personal “king” (or mediator-earthly leader… between Jesus Christ and a married woman)
Patriarchy goes back to what happened in Gen 3. How do we get authority/follower out of ONE FLESH UNION? Then we have the problem of Ezer which we know is used to describe God. So, it cannot mean junior assistant. (both of these are indepth issues. Grudem gets this so wrong that I fear for his soul in what he says about God and Ezer)
If we look at what Gen 3 teaches, we see NO where before that a chain of command structure in creation. Most comp/pat pastors and profs ignore Gen 1. (This is very lengthy to get into)
In Genesis, because of sin, we see 2 things cursed: Land and animals. What God says to Eve in Gen 3 is descriptive. But translators have totally blown it. Until about 1400, the term “teshuqa” was translated as “turning”. Then, a monk, named Pagnino, changed it to “desire”. See how the Vulgate translated it, too. Here is a historical translation chart of this word:
http://godswordtowomen.org/teshuqa_chart.pdf
Most masculinists teach that Eve tried to “usurp Adam’s authority” so he ruled over her. That is how they translate “desire”. Before this translation, for centuries, this was translated that women are more easily deceived so men have to rule over them. It was just taken for granted taht women were naturally inferior. That interpretation started being challenged in the early 20th century and culiminated in the Danvers statement trying to reinterpret Gen to mean there was a chain of command BEFORE the fall.
(By the way, it is ironic to note that Jesus and Apostles often quoted the Septuagint. And the Sept translates teshuqa as “turning”)
In fact, Eve did what God described. She “turned to Adam” instead of God and because she did that…Adam would rule over here. Hence…in effect…what comps teach as virtue is really sin! Sin is so deadly! How little we understand this even today! Women turning to their husbands instead of Jesus Christ as their leader. We also see Eve following Adam out of the Garden. And we see patriarchy rearing it’s ugly head right away with Lamech. What happened to “one flesh union”? Sin! But the Cross can restore this.
There is much more to this…such as the wrong interpreation of 1 Tim 2 meaning there is a chain of authority in “creation order”. That is NOT what Paul is talking about. He is responding to the cult of Artemis teaching in Ephesus that Eve was created first. (We know something is wrong here because woemn are NOT saved by bearing children. There is no work of salvation for women)
“That is, there are some
prophetesses, and female teachers in the Old and New Testaments,
but where are there any women priests, woman heads of tribes of
Israel, woman kings(Athaliah wrongly usurped the throne), ”
Why is Matt taking the sinful results of humanity and asking why women were not involved more deeply? (He is not alone…he is just believing wrong things being taught by big names)
And keep in mind that I have compassion for this. If I had been told for years and years I had a special position over others by virtue of birth/sex then I would most likely be loath to let it go and would probably fight hard to twist scripture to support my elevated position.
After all, God did not outlaw slavery. He simply regulated it. But was it the intention before the fall? He worked through sinful man for His own Glory. The OT points to Christ. And even though Christ did not outlaw patriarchy or slavery He did soemthing else. He taught that if they are believers, they are your brothers and sisters in Christ. Paul told Philemon to treat Oni as a brother in Christ. legally, Philemon could put Oni to death for running away. (Household codes at the time)
The Body is different than the world. IN CHRIST, there is no slave or free, nor male or female. What does that mean? In that theme of that book, it is about FULL inheritance. The slave in the Body can be gifted to preach even though a slave. And those in the Body will learn from the slave. No wonder we are called a peculiar people!
Matt is making the mistake of taking the sinful position of wanting authority over others (which was God’s position in the OT and Jesus’ in the NT) and trying to make it God’s best and not the result of sin that it is. (Yes, God instituted government that we obey but like Peter said, we must obey God and not man when it comes down to it)
What Matt and others don’t want you to realize is that FACT that there ARE ANY God called women leaders or prophetesses in the OT is incredible considering the pervasiveness of patriarchy. Why would God allow it?
Matt is also making the mistake of mapping Levite priests to the New Covenant.
But what do we do with Deborah, Huldah, Miriam,etc? If there is an exception, it means there is no hard rule. We also have to look at how translations have been altered. And we ignore how much the pagan cultures around them influenced them and why God hated their mingling so very much! This is from Bushnells book where she studies the Hebrew translations. There is more but we have so little room:
Originally woman had her place in the regular Tabernacle services, either as priestess or Levite. This is now conceded by Bible scholars, as proved by the technical term used in Exodus 38:8 and 1 Samuel 2:22, translated “serving women.” Now this term was altered to “fasting women” by the translators of the Septuagint Greek, and the phrase in 1 Samuel containing the words entirely dropped. To use the words of Prof. Margoliouth of Oxford, “The idea of women in attendance at the Tabernacle is so odious that it has to be got rid of.” The other ancient versions followed suit in purposely mistranslating the word as “prayed,” “thronged,” “assembled” there. Our A. V. renders “assembled,” but the R.V.rightly renders it “served.”
152. After a close line of reasoning, unsuitable for this place, but which we produce in later lessons, Prof. Margoliouth proves this charge which he makes.[8] He concludes, “It is evident that by the time when the Septuagint translation was made, the idea of women ministering at the door of the Tabernacle had become so odious that it was wilfully mistranslated.”
There are other examples of this which I won’t go into now.
” What about Deborah? Given the state of Israel at the
time, most see Judges not as illustrating well God’s Ideal for His people. Quite probably, then, Deborah’s judgeship demonstrates,not how God endorses female leadership, but rather just how far from God’s designed purposes Israel had strayed. In any case, it isdifficult to accept Deborah’s position as normative, in light of theoverwhelming evidence to the contrary.”
Matt is on very dangerous ground here. What is his normative evidence to the contrary? Patriarchy? He wants to use sin as the evidence!
The hard core Patriarches teach that God did not have any decent men to use and had to resort to a woman. As if this showed how horrible it becamse for Israel. This is exactly what Matt is doing using nicer words. But he has fallen for male preeminance, too. A huge sin snare for anyone.
Deborah brings HUGE problems for the masculinists so they have to try to explain her away. She was married and not only a “judge” of Israel but a “prophetess”. So, in Deborah, we see 2 mainstays of Patriarchal teaching blown away: leader and teacher of men. This cannot stand so we have to say it is not normative. But go read her “song”.
Of course Jael was not “normative” either. :o)
Leaving Junia for lasgt. I am SHOCKED that Matt even uttered this about Junia. Not very wise. It only means he is most likely listening to Piper and Grudem on this one. But Matt is not doing his homework because both Piper and Grudem have been trying to keep their ridiculous assertions about Junia out of the public debate. If I remember correctly, they issued a very vague statement but were hoping it would go away.
What they did was quote Epiphanius concerning “Junia”.
He insisted Junia was a male and not female name. (Literature does not bear this out). But we have a problem with Epiphanius in that he also wrote that “Prisca” (Priscilla) was a man!
He also wrote this at the same time and place: “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
So, old Grudem and Piper did not do their homework and even some comp scholars had to correct them publicly. It was embarassing.
As early as Origin of Alexander (ad 250ish) said Junia was a woman. So did Chrysotem (ad 340ish) as did many others.
Support for a female named Julia is evidenced by P46, a papyrus manuscript, dating from around a.d. 200. This papyrus represents the earliest known and most reliable testimony in support of Julia. The 3rd century Coptic, 4th century Vulgate, and fifth century Latin versions provide additional early support for this female name.
There is more but yuo get the point. Matt needs to do his own homework and stop reading Piper and Grudem!
oh, I meant to also say that Paul is writing of Junia as an “apostle” as in small “a”. An apostle means sent out one. She was going out teaching, preaching, planting churches, etc)
The entire chapter Romans 16 is a huge problem for masculinists because it is describing the work of the Body by many women. What do we do with Phoebe who was described as a ‘protasis’? Of course, we know that many translations also tried to dumb her down by calling her a servant while the same word was used to describe men as deacons. But it is the same word in the Greek!
Lydia,
Have you seen this clip featuring N.T. Wright? He has some interesting thoughts on women in ministry.
http://www.truveo.com/search?query=nt wright on women in ministry 5 and channel:youtube&flv=1#nt%20wright%20on%20women%20in%20ministry%205%20and%20channel%3A%22youtube%22
Watcher, thanks for linking to Tracy. I think he has been helpful to bring some hard core comps to a softer position. It is such a hard move to become a “mutualists” because it is seen as sinful and liberal by so many in Christendom.
If you even mention it in some cirles, you will automatically be accused of wanting to ordain homosexuals and of being a radical feminist or liberal. They have really owned this issue and defined it because even discussing translation problems brings accusations that are horrible! This is a form of “shame censorship” that really works when we have the wrong view of spiritual authority and elevate mere men instead of studying on our own.
Most never take questions such as CBMW. They just indoctrinate. And it is getting worse. Russ Moore of SBTS and CBMW contributer now says comps are wimps and we must have more patriarchy. Bruce Ware of SBTS and CBMW says that Eve was NOT created in the “direct image of God’ but is a “derivative”. This is coming out of the flaship seminary of the SBC. Piper teaches that wives should ‘take abuse for a season’. (I wonder if the husband is a professing Christian? He never says)
“Have you seen this clip featuring N.T. Wright? He has some interesting thoughts on women in ministry.”
I read a paper he wrote on women and to be honest, I can barely understand him because he is so verbose! But, I never mention Wright because the pats have censored him as a source on ANY doctrinal position. They claim he is a heretic. (Piper being the most vocal who has written a book). To even mention his name in those circles means you want to ordain homosexuals, burn your bra and build a statue of Diana in the church. (ok, hyperbole to describe the typical reaction)
I have NO idea as I know very little about Wright. I also hestitate to compare experts. ‘My expert is better than your expert’ is a losing propostion. I prefer to stick with THE whole pericope of scripture and translation discussions. However, I have NO problem pointing out the bad exeigesis of Piper and Grudem! :o)
(I am half expecting a certain SBTS grad to show up any minute)
Adam
The fact that you would take time out of your busy life to share your heart is wonderful. Go ahead, write books. I learn so much!
I promise I will lay low on Chandler and continue to follow his ministry with interest. And, how’s about this, if I end up changing my mind on a couple of things such as his frequent absences from Dallas, I will write a mea culpa post.
You might be interested in reading my post today. I am about to make a suggestion as to how YOung can turn around his life, a la Chan and Platt. I plan to discuss Platt tomorrow.
I have only two elaborating thoughts on your incisive comment.
Jesus tends to use his strong language against the rulers and Pharisees. The white washed tomb statement was going after the abusive practices of the church leaders who were causing pain and suffering for the followers. That is why leaders need to be very, very careful in how they treat those who come into their presence.
The Junia thing is pretty well documented. Even Timothy Keller, an admired guy in Cavinista circles, agrees that the wording was changed to make it masculine. It does cause a bit of a problem for the CBMW crowd. I think they like to contrast a real Apostle (like Paul and the disciples) and the little apostles with no capital. I think there is more to this but I think Lydia will do a better job than I can.
Darn, this is interesting.
PHEW, I got that right in my comment before I read yours.
So when are you going to write a book? I would love to see a book written in the form of a debate between you and someone else.
How about statue of Diana with an eternally burning bra?
“How about statue of Diana with an eternally burning bra?”
LOL! Sometimes I think that is exactly the picture they have in their minds of us when we speak of mutual submission (Eph 5:21) and the Joel Prophecy being for the entire church age!
Lydia!!!!
I am sooo excited!!! The United Nations has just named a woman to be the first human contact if aliens ever land and need to be “taken to a leader”. She will earn $165,000/annually for her efforts. Well, at least women are winning in the science fiction arena. 🙂
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/un_names_official_space_host_ltMCKbI4WmIPKteaugcanM
Oh Dear, what will we do if the aliens are patriarchs?
This is an excellent argument for why the UN is a moot organization! Let’s just hope they land in Malaysia.
I think Ed missed out on an opportunity for some bank.
Lydia,
I am truly thankful you spent so much time writing this! I am certainly ready to seek and study some of the issues you raised. I will definitely need to take some time to invest in this.
I, among many issues, am an open book (except those that are primary such as the divinity of Christ.) I like to wrestle over these things before coming to a dogmatic solution, and even if I think I have figured it out, I am always open for other thoughts. After reading this I realize that there is still much to learn, and that this issue is not as simple as it seems.
I am soaking in the things you have said, and hope to gain a greater understanding of the exegetical truth. I agree with Dee, you should actually write a book on this! There is so much one-sided teaching on the traditional view, and many people like me would love to see a different side to this story, especially a debate.
Much of what you have said makes so much sense! I really want to take a look at the “translation” issues that you have brought up…that is something that I am always leery about, but I have no reason to doubt that this could happen.
The Genesis translation problem truly is crucial..that is something to seriously look into and study..
If that is the case, I get what you are saying about a patriarchal society being something God tolerated but not intended..I it makes sense…
You mentioned Ephesians 5:21 as mutual submission…Paul continues that thought…it seems…in Ephesians 5: 22-25..–I think this verse is beautiful..and my wife and I try to follow it the best way we can. I am always seeking to be a loving husband for her who will sacrifice freely and love her consistently– same for her with me. I see a mutual submission in this verse.a partnership, one flesh.
So many abuse this verse where men see a “lording over” or “ruling over”..but the men forget their responsibility to their wife in that verse…what is the greatest kind of submission other than laying down your life for your wife?
Now, I understand the danger and risk of taking scripture at face value…because there may be cultural, translation problems or other issues that may come up…
So what is your take on the following “proof-text” verses: (I know I am asking much of you, but I am sincerely desiring to understand the truth in all of this, and you have brought up some excellent points that should be taught more)
Ok..these verses (1 Timothy 3: 1-7 and Titus 1: 5-9) discuss overseers/elders in the church…Many assume that elder/overseer can also mean “shepherd” in this context, which applies to pastors. Not sure if that is your take (you mentioned something about not lining up with the “traditional” role of the pastor) but I would be interested to hear what ya think.
Also, what do you make of the fact that Paul mentions “husband of one wife” in the latter verses? Do we take this at face value which obviously refers to a male…or is there something behind the scenes most have not seen?
Then you have, in the context of marriage, not just Ephesian 5: 22 but 1 Peter 3:1-7—what is your take on this? The common argument (and one that Chandler stands by) is that there is a common value between a husband and wife, but there is still a God ordained headship with a husband over his wife. The same with the “headship” of male leadership in the church. This does not take away the value, it simply adds unique “God-Ordained” responsibilities.
You have made some excellent points so far that the latter may not be the case, but if that is so, then why do these verses seem to point (at face value anyway) to the opposite?
I would love to hear how you handle these things and have no doubt you have an explanation…You have given a lot for me to think about…and I sincerely thank you for that!
Dee,
Thank you again for hearing my heart on this issue…I am glad I found this article about Matt, because I have been able to engage in amazing conversations with you ladies the past few days. You both are amazing thinkers and I love to be in conversations such as this.
I am excited about reading the article on Platt and Chan..they are setting a great example of what we need in a nation filled with “prosperity” churches that have lost sight with the Gospel…
I agree with your assessment on the Pharisees…I find the Pharisaical heart to be one of pride, arrogance, and hardness. We all have snippets of that from time to time, and I think in this situation it may have come out in both the writer of the email and Chandler.
This is unbelievable. And you wonder why non-believers want nothing to do with the church today.
“Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” – Jesus
So by you calling out Chandler in this blog, you accomplished what? I guess I just don’t understand how you believe this furthers the Kingdom or is even constructive. Do you expect Chandler to read this and then what…comment? Turn from his wicked ways?
I think you may have forgotten the thousands of souls and changed lives that Chandler has helped win. Congratulations on being able to walk the perfect Christian life!
David
Precisely! We are thinking about the nonbeliever. Did you know this statement of Chandler got around? We must accept that we can’t hide stuff any longer. If Christians speak out against this sort of things, perhaps our leaders will remember that everything they say is being watched, recorded, whatever. If we saw it, you can be sure others have as well.We didn’t make the statement, Chandler did. It is our hope, that by stating that we, as Christians, find this statement out of line, that non-Chrisitans will understand that Christians are not condoning this behavior.
BTW, do you really think that Jesus meant that we shouldn’t be calling each other out on this stuff? In fact, when Jesus made this statement, He was calling out the Pharisees, the leaders, who hurt a woman who was struggling in her life. Funny thing, this woman had sinned (just like Chandler’s emailer) yet Jesus pointed the finger at those who were accusing her. Sounds apropos, if you ask me.Thank you for giving me a perfect Bible verse to illustrate the point of our post. Wished I had thought of it sooner.
Oh ok…so nonbelievers read your post and then all of the resulting banter clears up for them what we Christians believe. Got it. That’s seems like a much more effective way to share the gospel than anything that Chandler is doing.
You take one soundbite out of Chandler’s hours and hours of preaching and criticize the guy. Not just about the one issue, but about his entire ministry. Somehow Chandler becomes the Pharisee?! Wow. That’s just nuts. It’s hard for me to understand how a Christian can so harshly criticize another Christian’s life and call from God.
I never read blogs or ever respond to them, but I just happened upon your post. Take it from someone who is not a blogger….your post is more harmful than good. I mean that with all sincerity. It’s not constructive. It is hurtful and turn off non-Christians. It gets us Christians off on tangents that move us further from God.
David,
Even though I disagree with you, I appreciate your taking the time to visit and comment on our “faith watch” blog. Have you actually taken the time to listen to the clip of Matt Chandler calling his anonymous critic a “Narcissistic Zero”? It’s absolutely appalling! Here’s the audio and transcript on another blog:
Matt Chandler Calling Out Cowards For Offering Anonymous Critiques
http://charlieholmes.net/cowards
What concerns me the most about Matt’s ridiculous rant is that he holds sway over so many young impressionable pastors, seminary students, etc., who will likely mimick him.
David
How does it turn off non-Christians? Do you mean it turns off non-Christians and statements like “narcissistic zeroes” do not?
Blogging is a means for all the little zeroes out there to have a say in the church’s direction. Today’s authoritarian structures in many churches has frozen the pew sitter out. The Holy Spirit is alive and well in his people, even the little guy. And sometimes, the Holy Spirit may choose to work in these folks to bring correction to the church and warning to the folks.
I actually think my post was careful. Even a pastor like Chandler can make some mistakes. To call a critic a zero could indicate that he has forgotten how to radically love those he has been called to serve. And some he has been called to serve are sinners, just as he.
Chandler did choose to excoriate a little guy sinner who follows him. Who is the leader in this situation? Chandler is and he is called to a higher standard. When you put yourself in the public eye, when others hold you up as an example, when you run around so much and become exhausted, you can choose to do the easy thing, strike out and strike back.
I am uniquely qualified to understand how exhausted this man is. Not only was I a hospice nurse, but my daughter struggled with malignant brain cancer. My sympathies and prayers are with him and his family in a way that only those who have experienced such a thing could understand.
As for moving Christian further from God, I disagree. There are many, many people who have been hurt by the church. Some have walked away from the faith. others refuse to go to church, and others are nominally involved. This blog provides an understanding ear to those who have been letdown. We encourage those folks to see that God has not deserted them. We agree with them that the church fails sometimes. We give them hope that there sanity and love still exist.
David, you love Chandler and have been blessed by him. I am glad. He is fortunate to have such a good friend who has gone out of his way to defend him. I thank you for coming onto this blog as a non-blogger although you are now officially joined the blogging kingdom by having a conversation here.
May I make a suggestion? There is a book written by Michael Spencer, the Internet Monk, before he died earlier this year with a brain tumor. It is called Mere Churchianity.It is written to those who feel the church has let them down. It might open your eyes to the pain in the church.
Thank you for your thoughts.
Adam, Thanks for having an open mind! I certainly did not come by my position lightly. It took years of study. But as a woman it was important to know truth. I will answer as best I can the following:
“Ok..these verses (1 Timothy 3: 1-7 and Titus 1: 5-9) discuss overseers/elders in the church…Many assume that elder/overseer can also mean “shepherd” in this context, which applies to pastors. Not sure if that is your take (you mentioned something about not lining up with the “traditional” role of the pastor) but I would be interested to hear what ya think.”
I think the functions are interchangable. I think elders can be pastors. but what is a “pastor”? It is the function in the Body of guiding someone. I can be a “pastor” to a new believer. I am a pastor to my children. We tend to confuse it with someone who preaches and leads a church. (Although I view elder as one more spiritually mature who will be the most lowly servant)
What was the function of pastor in the 1st century church? Can we even name the pastors of the churches of the Epistles? What does that tell us? Even the so-called “pastoral epistles” we cannot claim that Timothy was a “pastor”. He was not staying there forever. Nor was Titus in Crete.
I think one of the best articles on this is Frank Viola’s “Straight Talk to Pastors” if you care to google that. (I do not agree with Viola on everything but when it comes to history and 1st century structure of the body, I think he gets it right)
I think we went wrong when we started paying people after Christianity was legalized. We created “offices” where there were none but functions. The word “office” was added by the translators…and of course they were laboring under a church/state mentality and a king who was ‘boss’ of the church.
“Also, what do you make of the fact that Paul mentions “husband of one wife” in the latter verses? Do we take this at face value which obviously refers to a male…or is there something behind the scenes most have not seen?”
Does that mean that no single men can be elders? :o) Also it starts out saying that if ANYONE (tis) desires to be….
There is evidence that the same Greek idiom has been found on tombstones near Ephesus for women. It can mean “faithful spouse”.
“Then you have, in the context of marriage, not just Ephesian 5: 22 but 1 Peter 3:1-7—what is your take on this? The common argument (and one that Chandler stands by) is that there is a common value between a husband and wife, but there is still a God ordained headship with a husband over his wife. The same with the “headship” of male leadership in the church. This does not take away the value, it simply adds unique “God-Ordained” responsibilities.”
Kephale does not mean authority. There is no word such as “headship”. The Greeks would be confused. Is there an “armship” or “legship”? I know many try to pass it off but it simply is not used in Greek lit as authority. We see head/body metaphors in scripture…and it is a “oneness” thing. If the Holy Spirit was communicating authority over there are clear Greek words to have used such as exousia or arche. But He did not. The Greeks saw the head as the source for the Body. It can mean preeminance. Or first among equals kind of thing which would make sense in the 1st century context and with certain Greek lit. That is probably the dirtiest interpretation trick yet…to make Kephale an authority over doctrine. And yes, Jesus Christ is our authority but in this passage he is the source/origin of the church and we are ONE with Him. His bride. BTW: Remind the men they are part of the “Bride”. :o)
If I take Matt’s translation of head then that means there is an intermediary between me and Jesus Christ. That cannot be. Do they think the husband is the “spiritual authority” for the wife? That is dangerous and is setting themselves up to be the Holy Spirit for her.
As to 1 Peter, he is writing about those who are believers but must live around unbelievers. The believing slave who has an unbelieving master. That is the context for that whole passage. He is telling the believing wife how her comportment may bring her unbelieving husband to Christ. Many pastors leave out that part of the context because they proof text and only quote chp 3.
Remember that the Word was not written with chapter breaks and verse numbers. Peter’s teaching in context starts way back in chapter 2 abut us being a royal priesthood and how we are to conduct ourselves in the “world”. So we have instructions as believers living among unbelievers: The government, slaves to unbelieving masters, wives to unbelieving husbands:
” 1 Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear.”
I have a friend who clung to this passage living with an unbelieving husband for 20 years praying, fasting before the Lord. A few years ago he was saved.
Just a note about the reference to Sarah. If you go back to the OT, you will see that God told Abraham to obey Sarah, too.
IT is easier to understand in light of the household codes of the time of the pagan cultures of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia. Peter called these believers, exiles.
One question I like to ask comps now, which I stoled from Jon Zens, is why they choose to interpret the function of women in the Body through the lens of 1 Tim 2 (a very hard passage to interpret) instead of pentecost? I also believe the Joel prophecy is for the church age.
David, One must not strive to become a celebrity pastor if they do not want to be critiqued. It comes with the territory. Chandler is taking speaking gigs all over. He certainly does not have to.
What is even worse is that the non believer already thinks we are hypocrites. to play the fake game of “we are always wonderful” is silly. They already believe we are hypocrites.
What Chandler did in calling this anonymous person a narcissistic zero is setting himself up as a Pharisee. Chandler has power, position and is being courted by other celebrity pastors. And believe me, they HATE being critisized. They take it personal which is strange because when you strive to become a public figure, it comes with the territory and it becomes an excellent opportunity to model a Christ like repsonse.
Follow men not Christ. We have all had our favorite leaders but when it comes down to it, we must remember to keep perspective. God is not respecter of persons. Chandler has no special anointing that any other believer can’t have.
““I got this real hateful and spiteful e-mail this week that said, “This sounds like a last ditch effort of a dying church to entice the next generation to come.” The reason I giggle is because in that e-mail I also said, “Hey, we grew by 1,500 last weekend.” So do you see what I mean by crazy?
And then just because I have you, can I say this? We have not created a system here that hides from you. We’ll receive any bit of rebuke and any bit of critique. But you sign your name when you send stuff in, you immature, weak little cowards. You sign your name, you silly, pathetic little boy. You don’t take jabs behind an alias. Who does that? So in any realm, we’re not above reproach. In any realm, you can question, you can come in and have your questions answered. You don’t take jabs at us behind some alias while you sit in the crowd and do nothing, you narcissistic zero. Sign your name! I probably need to get some help. I’ll work through that.””
the thing is, by this public tirade he is actually telling folks NOt to dare rebuke or critisize him. I certainly would’nt bother. And that is the point. When someone does approach them, they are nice and listen and then they brand that person a troublemaker. I have seen this strategy in every single mega church.
And “adding 1500” means nothing. It is quality not quantity but mega churchs are into quantity.
Perhaps we should discount the book of Hebrews because it was anonymous?
Lydia, I’m curious how one would use Pentacost as a special way of interpreting the role of women. As a cessationist I’ve always taken Pentacost as a day when the Spirit came to be with the church of Christ, both as a whole body and as indwelling individual believers, but that the gifts later spoken of in I Corinthians have ceased. Excuse my ignorance, but where does that speak specifically to the part women play in the body of Christ, other than clearly indicating that they do play a part?
Hi Watcher,
The bottomline is that they WERE given the Holy Spirit to function in the building of the ekklesia at Pentecost. Why would they be so gifted at the beginning and then told they could not function fully later? It does indicate that they do play a “FULL INHERITANCE” part in the Body or else why were they gifted to prophesy publicly to “start” the Body? That seems rather contradictory.
Another clue is 1 Corin 11, where Paul “assumes” those women were praying and prophesying publicly in the Body. Why would he “assume” that?
The question was whether to do it with their heads covered or not. (remember, the translators added “symbol of” in verse 10. It is not in the Greek. And remember what Paul says about the angels in that passage goes back to chapter 6. Women will also judge the angels. They are FULL heirs.)
I am not sure if being a cessationist matters or not in this instance. I am not sure if I am one or not. I gave up trying to figure that out. :o)
Lydia, thanks for clearing that up. I tend to only respect complementarians who take a fairly nuanced view on the issue, so I guess I just dismiss out of hand all the guys out there who ignore things like women prophesying in the NT.
The only reason I brought up my cessationism was that it might make a difference in one’s view of Pentacost’s role in the church overall. I think Pentacostals and Third Wave types make a bigger deal of it than continuationists and cessationists, but most especially cessationists. I’ve waffled between the latter two views a fair amount over the years.
I am definitely NOT third wave! And like you I have waffled between the continualist and cessationist view with a suspicious eye toward “tongues”.
BTW: So many try to tell me that “prophesying” is different than preaching/teaching so as to make allowances for women prophesying in the NT. And they claim it is something not done anymore…as in cessation of gifts.
But the only problem is that the Puritans wrote about this and concluded that prophesying and preaching are one and the same. And the Puritans were not women friendly at all. But they had no need to worry because they believed all women were inferior and deceived…which even the Cross could not fix. :o(
Lydia, any chance you have a reference (just author or just book) for Puritans concluding that prophecy and preaching are the same? I’d be interested to read it. Seems like by that logic cessationists would have to say that preaching (teaching?) is a gift that has ceased too!
Lydia,
I want to thank you again. You have certainly opened my eyes on many things. I appreciate your years of study into this, and as I have taken seminary classes where topics such as this have been brought up, I guarantee you none of those professors took the time that you have to discuss some of these issues.
I searched for the article you have mentioned and intend to read it sometime today. The best thing I think for me now is to take some time and pour into this study. I too want the truth, and I feel that I may not be seeing everything as I once thought, but I will not know until I fully study this…..I thank you for opening the door!
Adam,
Thanks for your cooperative spirit toward Lydia. Although Dee and I don’t know her personally, she’s very special to us here in the blogosphere.
Have a blessed weekend!
FYI – Matt got good news yesterday about his cancer. Check out his vlog below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAWyCHa5OlY
Thanks everyone for the awesome discussion here! 🙂
“Lydia, any chance you have a reference (just author or just book) for Puritans concluding that prophecy and preaching are the same? I’d be interested to read it. Seems like by that logic cessationists would have to say that preaching (teaching?) is a gift that has ceased too!”
It was in a book and if I remember correctly it was written by a Puritan and not just quoting one but I cannot remember the name of it. If I think of it, I will post it.
Thanks Adam for your irenic stance on what can be a very controversial topic. For the sake of your sisters in Christ, I thank you for taking this seriously. I cannot imagine that our Lord wants to silence half of the Body of Christ from proclaiming His Word to anyone regardless of gender. But I suspect, Satan is delighted.