Why Men Don’t Have Babies!

Sweet dreams are made of this….

Be Careful at the Gas Pump

My friend Kevin DeYoung beat me to the “post” button with his question and concern on “New Wave Complementarianism.” Kevin is always thoughtful and helpful with a wonderful ability to take complex things and make them simple.

If you’ve read his post, you know that he responds to another post entitled “New Wave Complementarianism” written by Wendy Alsup. I don’t know Wendy personally but I’ve appreciated her courage and her insight over the couple years I’ve been reading her books and blog. In her post, Wendy (as I read her) attempts a framework for describing a phenomena she sees among many women who (a) love their Bibles, (b) are themselves unashamed complementarians, but (c) sometimes find themselves uncomfortable with what Alsup calls “old school complementarianism.” In reply, Kevin asks the question: “What was the old wave” of complementarianism?

Definitions Matter

When Wendy offered her post a couple weeks back, I was one of Kevin’s friends who tweeted an appreciation for it. That’s not to say I agreed with everything in the post. But I resonated with its spirit, which I’d tried to express in my own terms some time back in a series of posts titled, “I’m a Complementarian, But….”

If we’re to have a fruitful conversation, it seems to me we need to start with definitions, with Kevin’s question. Otherwise we’re bound to talk right past one another. When Wendy wrote of “old school complementarians” and “hard core complementarianism/patriarchy” I think she made at least a rhetorical error. I don’t think she means to equate patriarchy with complementarity (I trust she’ll be able to speak to that herself), but putting these things on par creates some confusion and probably the male counterpart to what some women feel when they hear feminism treated as an unmitigated evil. We ought not conflate patriarchy (often a pejorative synonymous with oppression of women) with either “old school” or “hard core” complementarianism (a biblical understanding of our humanity and how our genders relate in home and church).

As I see it, two problems result. First, we simply and harmfully mis-define and misrepresent both patriarchy and complementarity. Being too casual or too sloppy at this point risks setting up “sides” in a discussion that ought genuinely feature partners–especially if we’re legitimate complementarians. Second, not drawing clear distinctions between patriarchy and complementarity prevents us from benefitting from both history and our contemporary discussion. We miss each other.

What We Could Miss in This Discussion

I’m excited for what could happen in this conversation. It could result in fresh and joyful wind filling the sails of complementarian practice. We could learn to speak and live this vision of our shared humanity in a way that makes God’s wisdom and creativity beautiful inside and outside the church to some measure. But for that to happen, we have to be careful to hear the “gist” of what conversation partners are saying.

Missing Our Sisters’ Perspective. For example, I read Wendy’s post and others around the same time with appreciation and hope in part because I heard something very different than Kevin. Kevin heard in the post a kind of apologetic against egalitarianism that ceded too much ground. Witness his concluding sentence: “The impulse to rescue counter-cultural doctrines from their own unpopularity is one of the first steps to losing the doctrine altogether.” I think that sentence is true. Making tough doctrines “prettier” to their “cultured despisers” does tend toward the loss of the truth itself. But is that what is happening here?

When I read Alsup and others, I heard a collection of sisters serious about the faith, embracing the Bible and complementarity (sometimes admittedly against their sinful inclinations), who want to be useful to the Lord and His church, but who also have a critique to offer. I hear some women who have had sometimes painful experiences with malpractice. And I hear some women who are telling us that they’re picking up messages that major on exclusion and weakness–what women cannot do and what some teach as inherent feminine gullibility and debility or disability. I’m hearing some women telling us that some fundamental affirmation of their beauty, dignity, purpose, and usefulness as women goes lacking in our teaching and our community. They are listening to us as women—as God has made them—and they are endeavoring to tell us something about that experience of hearing our teaching and receiving our leadership.

To borrow from one sister who I thought at points wrote beautifully and helpfully of this critique:

“We want you to understand that male is not the default setting for human existence. That being female was not an afterthought or a derivative. We want you to understand that we happily defer to you, but not easily. That submission is a sacrifice we gladly offer but it is a sacrifice nonetheless. It is a sacrifice precisely because we are equals. And deferring to you in our homes and churches requires a strength that only God can provide.”

We need to hear these critiques even if we don’t agree at every point along the way. We need to treasure this precisely because we are complementarians of a biblical variety, whether “old school” or “hard core.” I think we need to hear it because I’m certain we’ve all seen and heard enough of the malpractice to know that our sisters’ critiques are not unfounded. It would be to the blessing of our sisters in our churches if we could mine everything that’s good and necessary from this perspective so that we might speak of and live out complementarity beautifully.

What Some Women Miss. On the other hand, I long for some sisters to hear some very real concerns at both the broader cultural level and at the most practical level of home. Culturally, we are still in the battle for a vision of flourishing gender in biblical roles. But the battle lines have shifted in some regards. When some of the “old complementarians” took up arms in this fight, there were snarling opponents outside the church and inside the church. To them it seemed an almost lost cause from the beginning. Their leaning into the storm was a tremendous act of courage and faith. Many of the chief opponents held influential pulpits and presidencies at Christian institutions. I hope they might be forgiven if sometimes the tone they use seems battle-hardened, perhaps more fitting for that “old” struggle against those “old” enemies.

Many of these stalwarts are, frankly, surprised that so much ground for complementarity has actually been warn. Yet some of them (or more accurately, their followers) may not have realized that they don’t have to capture the same ground twice. They don’t have to respond to sisters on the same team with tones and comments similar to how those developed over years of strife and conflict. But I hope they might be forgiven if they sometimes react with a little PTSD when they hear sisters “inside the camp” seemingly evoking the arguments of “enemies” long declared opposed to a biblical view. When you’ve been fighting on one front for so long you can begin to respond to every front much the same way. Everything looks like a nail to a hammer. But these men and women are not calling for an oppressive patriarchy as I understand it. To equate them with patriarchal oppressors of women does them a significant disservice and fails to pay proper respect to the gains they’ve won for us all. Hence, again, the need for definition and carefulness.

Moreover, I long for some sisters to hear the argumentation for the typical understanding of Genesis 3:16. That understanding best represents the general state of things when it comes to the typical experience of breakdowns in of complementarity in the home. I don’t doubt for a moment that there are plenty of women who do not wish to rule over their husbands. We don’t want to stereotype. But my pastoral counseling experience teaches me that the woman’s “desire for her husband” all too often does, in fact, look like a usurping of roles, a grasping for authority and control. What I see in homes isn’t just “idolatrous desire for a husband’s affection” but also a strong craving to “rule over the man.” And in surprising ways those two sinful inclinations tend to twine themselves together. The more she grabs for rulership, the less affection she receives from a retreating husband. The more a woman craves that affection but doesn’t get it, the more she defaults to control as a mechanism for coercing it. And on it goes. Pastorally, I think the “new wave” interpretation of Genesis 3:16 really misses the experiential mark for tons of women. Since Alsup’s interpretation of Gen. 3:16 is foundational to her description of “NWC,” it seems further thought and adjustment is needed at precisely this point. This is, after all, where the rubber most painfully hits the road and burns our dreams.

Speaking Beautifully about the Beautiful

Let me say that I mostly agree with Kevin’s response to points 4-6 of Alsup’s articulation of “New Wave Complementarianism.” As already mentioned, I think the typical interpretation of Genesis 3:16 is more compelling. I’m less negative about feminism than Kevin seems but also less sanguine than Alsup. What I appreciate about feminism is what perhaps Alsup appreciates—it was an effort to correct oppressive actions against women. I think we’re all against such oppression. But I’m less sanguine than Alsup (perhaps?) because feminism responds to oppression by placing an explosive charge at the very pillars of a biblical understanding of gender and gender roles. That’s been far more destructive in its effects than seemingly acknowledged in Alsup’s appreciation.

But, honestly, from my vantage point, our debate about those things feels and seems much less important than our ability to describe and live a complementarian vision with beauty and dignity and grace—on the ground. If we don’t learn to speak of a beautiful thing beautifully, we won’t make much more progress in either direction. If our practice isn’t our apologetic (1 Tim. 4:14; Titus 2:405, for ex.), then we won’t really have anything to commend.

In some of the “New Wave” posts, wonderfully poignant points were made. But they would also be marred with a kind of agitation and advocacy that I’m sure felt necessary but to me marred the beauty. You could leave feeling like you were the enemy rather than the complement. Likewise, in the counter responses, to the extent that they miss the “gist” of our sisters’ concerns, it’s not difficult to see how some women might go away feeling as if they were just tagged with the “egalitarian,” “feminist” or “problem” label. What they felt could be beautiful might seem trampled upon with slippery slope warnings.

It seems to me that we need a lot more work on describing the essential beauty of femininity and complementarity. We need to repeatedly point to that almost ineffable quality of womanhood that makes it regal, splendid, alluring, and necessary in essence. Womanhood is not an afterthought or a surplus. I know everyone knows and understands that, but do we make it a major point in our teaching and treatment of each other?

We need a lot more work on describing the functional beauty of femininity and complementarity. How womanhood works is in itself beautiful. Women are not men with different reproductive organs. They are, as God designed them, uniquely capacitated to work and do. We ought not be afraid of the phrase “women’s work,” because I suspect God did have in mind a “women’s work” that uniquely belonged to them, not in  the sense of relegated insignificance but in the sense of a fuller and distinct revelation of something about himself. And that’s beautiful. It’s Satan’s work to make us think otherwise.

We need to discuss the spiritual beauty of femininity and complementarity. I find the invitation to think about the imago Dei more frequently in these discussions an attractive opportunity. I’m no Barthian or neo-Barthian and I don’t feel myself in danger of Kevin’s concern here. But I’m certain God had intention, purpose, design beyond body when in infinite wisdom He decided to make woman. The spiritual qualities of womanhood and how they are both similar and dissimilar to manhood could use more treatment, especially as it beautifies those qualities rather than obfuscates them.

Finally, we need to discuss the moral beauty of complementarity and femininity. It’s good and right to be a woman who embraces both the limits and the freedoms that God gives. That goodness and rightness needs articulation. We need constant description of how moral flourishing happens when we abide in this vision of our humanity.

I wonder if we might be able to seize this opportunity to think and write beautifully about a reality that is itself beautiful. Or will we miss this potential because, truthfully, miss the opportunity to be complementarians?

Speaking of Beautiful Things in a Beautiful Way: Complementarianism “New” or “Old”

Influence. It’s a funny thing. It’s inescapable–someone will always be perceived to have it or not have it, to either use or misuse it. We complain about it, but we also want to be influenced. Very few people are thorough-going “Lone Rangers” about anything. We see the utility of influence. We want someone to point us on a good course, to help us over a hurdle, and to set a model for us. Influence is how you get some things done or prevent others. Who doesn’t want influence on certain policy issues or certain church initiatives or with our children and spouses? We live in a world where influence is traded, debated, manipulated, and fabricated. Some people look influential but they aren’t. Some people look insignificant but wield influence like a sword. Some name drop and talk about how much “pull” they have. Others need only raise an eyebrow and real actions follow. Some people want influence badly while others run from it.

There used to be a commercial about a brokerage firm named E.F. Hutton. The quip in the commercial was, “When E.F. Hutton speaks, people listen.” Dropping that name at a dinner party silenced the entire soiree as party-goers leaned in to hear whatever E. F. Hutton was poised to say. E.F. Hutton has been sold a couple times, merged with other companies, and now apparently restarted by former executives of the original firm. If I had to guess, many readers of this post have likely never heard the name “E. F. Hutton.”

So goes influence. It, like money, makes itself wings and flies away.

Which is why you shouldn’t really listen to me. I’m nobody. “Thabiti Anyabwile” is not a Swahili name for “E. F. Hutton.” Don’t stop what you were doing. Don’t tune in to a post because I mention it in a twitter feed. Don’t begin to think my opinion about anything matters much at all, certainly not to the extent that you need to hold that view simply because somebody said I once said it. I ain’t nobody.

Now, some of you think you knew that already. That’s good; keep it that way please. But I suspect that some others have mentioned my name in this or that conversation, favorably or unfavorably, and imagined that I had some influence they should either accept or counter. Some have decided they either like or dislike me because I’m associated with this or that person, because I get to preach at conferences, because I’m a member of TGC, because I blog at TGC, because I hold a particular theology, and because they think such “platforms” give me influence.

Here’s the thing about influence: It mostly lies in the subjective impression of the person being or resisting influence. We see someone prominent, standing out, and we assign to them the magical quality of influence. But influence is not often real, objective, measurable. It depends on the person wanting influence convincing others to see them as influential. Don’t get me wrong; some few people really do have power and authority to make some things happen. But the rest of us have some level of “clout” assigned to us by those watching us and trying to make sense of whether we exist for some positive or negative good in the world. I don’t want “clout.” I have no power. Ideas have power. People… not so much.

That’s why you shouldn’t listen to me, as though some authority or influence resided in me. I don’t want the kind of influence that rests upon personality, “platforms,” networks, and least of all “appearance” or “image.” If you find yourself on the opposing end of an argument or an idea, let’s stay focused on the argument or idea. I don’t want to be your enemy and I hope not to treat you like one. If you find yourself moved by an idea, by an argument, by some principled application, then know that you’ve been influenced by an idea. If you got it from me, that’s incidental. Everything I have I first received. Central is the grace of God and the truth of God.

So, don’t listen to me. Chances are you don’t even know me. I’m not likely related to you. I’m probably not your pastor. I don’t have any control over the events in your life. I certainly have no part in the incommunicable attributes of God like omniscience. Everything I’ve ever said, done, or written is only partially true, corrupted by my faults, limitations, and sin, and likely in need of a good dose of correction or balance. In fact, I’d be grateful to anyone who cares enough either about ideas or me to add a gracious word of correction to any ideas I’ve expressed. I don’t take it as an attack, but as an act of courage and duty borne by responsible men and women.

Why this post? It’s not a direct response to anyone or any controversy. I even chose a random date for it to post. No, it’s because I need the reminder of this post. I’m vulnerable to the tempting siren of “influence,” to trying to cultivate a persuasive power that inheres not so much in the truth of ideas but in the power of personality or “appearance.” What a horrible insatiable monster that kind of pride and self-seeking is. How vain to monitor twitter followers, web statistics, and anything else that suggests “influence.” And what ruthless task masters are the expectations of others who think you have influence and want to borrow some or sway your use of it. It’s a trap, I’m telling you!

Far better to recognize Jesus Christ is the only compelling power and influence in the world, in whose hands the hearts of kings are turned, by whose word the universe stands, and before whose throne every knee will bow and confess. Influence? Only if it makes Jesus known and brings men under his light and easy yoke of love. Everything else is a mist that’ll soon evaporate in the radiance of His glorious rule!

Why You Should Not Listen to Me

I wonder if others observe a phenomenon I think I see in many churches: people clustering with others in their generation? The 20-somethings spend their time with other 20-somethings talking about 20-something concerns. The young families hang out with other young families, hosting play dates and trading parenting tips. It seems to me that 60-somethings tend to flock together with other 60-somethings. There are notable exceptions, of course. There are those older men and women who become pillars in the church by investing in younger men and women. And there are the younger persons who seek to serve young families or older members. But by and large, people seem to spend the bulk of their spiritual energy and time with other people in the same stage of life.

There’s much that can be said about this–its scope, causes, benefits, and so on. But one thing that strikes me today is that segregating into enclaves based on age and life-stage tends to weaken the future of the church. What do I mean?

Well, it’s clear that God intends the faith to be taught and passed down from the older generation to the younger. Paul’s words to Titus are perhaps the most well-known words to this effect:

You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine. Teach the older men to be temperate, worthy of respect, self-controlled, and sound in faith, in love and in endurance. Teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God. Similarly, encourage the young men to be self-controlled. In everything set them an example by doing what is good. In your teaching show integrity, seriousness and soundness of speech that cannot be condemned, so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us. (Titus 2:1-8)

But what happens when this vision of body life doesn’t materialize in a widespread way because we cluster into our demographic groups?

Well, 20-somethings tend to learn mostly from other 20-somethings. They’re cut off from the perspective and wisdom gained by being a generation or two older. They develop 20-something solutions to what will likely either be 40-something foundations or problems. They make courtship and dating decisions that look really cool at 20 but turn out to be short-sighted at 40. They make purchasing decisions that seem life-giving at 20 that turn into major burdens at 40. I think I see lots of 20-somethings (guys in particular) running the race without self-control, self-control that older members could and should help them gain.

Meanwhile, the 40-somethings work through marriage, parenting, and career issues without the longer view of 60-somethings. As quiet as it’s kept, knowing how to be a husband, wife or parent doesn’t come to us by osmosis. We have to be taught how to love a wife, how to respect a husband, and how to raise our children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. And sometimes those callings get as nuts-and-bolts as learning how to cook, how to discipline, how to argue and how to make up. During this period, our 30- and 40-somethings develop or continue habits that either help or hurt. Sadly, many will do so without the wisdom that comes from more seasoned experience. Consequently, they take the same lumps others could have helped them avoid. Or they “make it” through that middle-age season via a series of trial and error experiments.

This, of course, affects the temperature and vitality of the church. We have congregations of people “trying to figure life out” largely alone. Great amounts of time get invested in helping young people negotiate the choppy waters of early adulthood, middle-aged people work their way through challenges of marriage, family, and career, and older persons figure out meaning late in life sometimes without much-loved spouses, declining  health, and shrinking numbers of living peers. Pastors and elders mistakenly think they must become masters of each stage of life, counsel people through every opportunity and difficulty, and be there in every circumstance. But, actually, the Bible instructs the pastor to teach the congregation to be there for one another and does so by tying the generations together so that the built-in expertise of old age gets leveraged for every younger generation. It’s a beautiful thing.

In this way older members of the local church become the front line of discipleship and care. They brighten the future of the church by teaching younger members how to live out the faith, how to avoid mistakes, seize opportunities, practically apply the word of God to their lived realities. As that store of wisdom, maturity, and experience gets passed on and received with humility, the spiritual, emotional, and volitional maturity of the congregation rises considerably. The more mature the young persons in the body the brighter the future of the church. We sometimes act as if older members have no role vital to the future of the church. But actually they are absolutely essential, indispensable.

How Older Members Brighten the Future of the Church

Supernatural Living for Natural People: The Life Giving Message of Romans 8 by Raymond C. Ortlund, Jr. (Christian Focus). I like the good folks at Christian Focus and I like Ray Ortlund. Seeing them together is like seeing two of your really good friends meet for the first time. This is actually a new edition of a book first published in 2000. Here’s the publisher’s description:

Romans eight is a favourite of many Christians as it contains verse after verse of pure spiritual gold. It opens up to us peace with God, the ministries of the Spirit, the urgency of personal reformation, the glory of our eternal inheritance, the power of God’s goodness at work in our daily lives and the invincibility of his loving intentions toward us. In this thoughtful and perceptive book, Ray Ortlund delves deeply into Romans 8, our appreciation and understanding of the chapter will be thoroughly revitalised.

The book boasts endorsements from Sam Storms, Tom Schreiner, Mark Johnston, Tom Nettles, Eric Alexander and others.

Why Cities Matter: To God,the Culture, and the Church by Stephen T. Um and Justin Buzzard (Crossway). Stephen and I serve together on the council of The Gospel Coalition. I’ve known Justin for a number of years, probably first meeting at a Worship God event or something. Good brothers both. No doubt you’ve heard a lot about the importance of cities in gospel ministry and cultural engagement. I’ll confess to being skeptical or partisan. I live on an island without cities after all. But I suspect Um and Buzzard will be thoughtful and penetrating in making the case. I look forward to hearing them out and perhaps being persuaded. Here’s the publisher’s description:

We live in a unique moment in history.

Right now, more people live in urban centers than ever before. This means that we have an unprecedented opportunity to influence the majority of the world through the church in the city.

Helping us to make the most of this moment, urban pastors Justin Buzzard and Stephen Um lay out a compelling vision for cultural engagement and church planting in our world’s cities.

If you’re looking for motivation to maintain a commitment to the city or for guidance as you consider going all in, this book provides a comprehensive analysis of urban life that informs, instructs, inspires, and answers questions including:

• Why cities are so important
• What the Bible says about cities
• How to overcome common issues and develop a plan for living missionally in the city

Instead of retreating from or taking from our cities, here is a call to make the cities our home, to take good care of them, and to participate in God’s kingdom-building work in the urban centers of our world.

Take up and read! Let me (and others) know what you think. Comments are open.

Books in the Mail (April 30, 2013)

And Sunday keeps coming. What to do?

I’m no expert on either preaching or getting out of slumps. But doodling tonight, I thought of six things that might help.

1. Get on Your Knees

So much of preaching ineffectiveness actually begins in the prayer closet. The preacher looks up and finds they’ve either had little motivation to pray, or their prayers have become rote, or the urgent  has bullied prayer from their calendar. In either case, the remedy isn’t technique in the pulpit. It’s humility in the prayer closet. Preachers can be guilty of the “practical atheism” or prayerlessness. I know I’ve sensed the difference in my own heart and the apparent fruitfulness of my preaching when I’ve been faithful in private communion with God.

2. Get Perspective

Sometimes the slump comes from over-thinking. Like the shooter who once lofted three-pointers without a conscience but now hesitates. He’s thinking twice about whether to take the shot. The preacher can think too much about that exegetical point, illustration, or application. We can over-think delivery or think too much about our audience, or place too much confidence in the sermon. When that happens perhaps we need to remember a couple basic things. We preach for an audience of One. The word does the work. The Lord buries the worker and carries on the work. We need to get our minds fixed on the omnipotent God who frames the heavens with a two-letter word. We need to rely more heavily on God himself. He will cause His word to accomplish His purposes.

3. Get Help

Sometimes a preacher just needs help. Ever wonder why professional golfers or professional basketball players have coaches? Sometimes bad habits develop. There’s a hitch in the swing, or the elbow needs to be perpendicular to the floor on that free throw. But we can’t see it. We need someone else to help us. We shouldn’t be too proud to get such help–whether it’s asking a fellow pastor to listen to a few sermons, or conducting sermon reviews with staff, or taking up a good read on preaching. From time to time, preaching slumps are broken with a little impartial and loving influence from the outside. We shouldn’t be afraid to get it.

4. Get Over Yourself

This is a close cousin to #2 above. Where #2 involves getting a proper perspective on God, this requires getting a proper perspective on ourselves as men and preachers. If there’s one thing I know about preaching and preachers it’s that preaching is a hothouse for pride and preachers are often terribly insecure. Our heads swell and we think we’re “good” or even “great” preachers after a couple sermons the Lord seems to bless. We can so easily forget to ascribe glory to God when He takes our otherwise lifeless and uninspired words and makes them into a meal and nourishment for our people. Conversely, a “bad” sermon or an “okay” sermon that failed to conjure praise can leave a preacher careening toward doubt and self-pity. In either case, we simply need to get over self. We need the flesh to be crucified afresh with Christ. We need a conscious strategy for forgetting ourselves, “hiding behind the cross,” and embracing our nothingness. If we could kill the tendency to bolster our sagging self-image and ego needs through the pulpit we would find ourselves blissfully free of pride-induced slumps.

5. Get Rest

So much of our spiritual life depends on adequate rest as an act of faith. There’s a great difference between forcing yourself to sleep and resting in the Lord. The regular cycle of pastoral ministry necessitates adequate times of respite. This is all the more critical if the people-intensive nature of pastoral ministry and preaching feels like a heavy tax. Not every preacher is an introvert. Those who aren’t need regular retreats in their routine. We all do. So it’s important to monitor your schedule, your energy levels, and your recreation (in the old sense of that word). Energy and rest affect preaching. If we rest before we’re depleted we may find our slumps less frequent and less deep.

6. Get on with It

The slumping shooter has to keep shooting. The slumping golfer has to keep swinging. The slumping quarterback has to keep throwing. Likewise, the slumping preacher has to keep preaching. It may do him good to get away for a season of refreshment. But eventually he’ll have to climb the stairs to the sacred desk again and preach. That’s what he does. And there’s no way around a slump, only through it. So, we need to recommit ourselves to doing our text work, praying, reading, writing, praying, and then preaching with our entire selves. Leave it all in the people’s ears and tee it up again next Sunday. Gardner Taylor once called preaching “sweet torture.” And so it is. It can be a torturous calling. But to the called it’s a sweet and holy privilege.

Questions: Have you ever had a preaching slump? Do you think you’ve ever seen your pastor in a preaching slump? What do you do [or your pastor do] to get out of preaching slumps?

Getting Through a Preaching Slump

“Besides everything else, I face daily the pressure of my concern for all the churches.” (2 Cor. 11:28)

That’s how the apostle Paul capped off a long list of afflictions suffered in service to Christ. He spoke of his hard work, imprisonments, floggings, exposure to death, stonings, shipwrecks, natural disasters, bandits, betrayals, sleeplessness, hunger and thirst, and physical need. That’s a partial listing of the “everything else.” Yet, there’s a “besides” that’s always intrigued me. Besides, in addition to, over and beyond, on top of the many sacrifices and afflictions, there’s one more thing. We get the sense that this one thing stresses Paul more than all the other things. We have the sense that this additional thing nearly breaks Paul. Perhaps it’s his wording. Or perhaps it’s the placement at the end of the list. Or, maybe it’s the opening clause, “Besides everything else,” that sets this apart to the reader. Maybe it’s all three.

What is it?

Paul writes, “I face daily the pressure of my concern for all the churches.” We might say the great apostle was “burdened” for the local churches. He carried that concern or burden for “all the churches”–not just the churches he knew or served. We witness him writing letters to congregations he never visited or saw personally. We read of his concern for churches that were rejecting his ministry and teaching, even questioning his apostolic authority. And we have the privilege of eavesdropping on his love for the churches he nursed like a mother and guided like a father, even if only for a matter of weeks. Wherever Christ’s bride was found or known, Paul cared. “All” magnified his concern.

Moreover, that concern felt to him like “pressure.” It was a vise, gripping and squeezing him. It was a weight, mashing him beneath. It was a kind of cooker, sealing him in and turning the very air around him into pressing heat. The apostle felt like the church was on his shoulders, a responsibility, a calling, an inescapable duty or charge or trust. All the words fit, and they all magnified the concern into a “pressure.”

Finally, Paul “faced” this pressure “daily.” He couldn’t avoid it. He wouldn’t shirk it. He played the man and looked into it. And there was no time off, no long weekends, no holidays or vacations as we know them. Daily. That’s how often he felt the pressure of his loving concern for all the churches. Waking, traveling, eating, praying, preaching, visiting, teaching, suffering–each and very single day.

We all want a pastor like Paul. So we tell ourselves. But I wonder if we all have a good idea of how heavy with care Paul’s heart must have been? If we have a pastor like this, will we stop long enough to consider how much pressure he endures every day in order to be “a pastor like this”? Will we consider how many things turn his care and concern into pressure and heartache?

The most difficult part of pastoral ministry is keeping a caring heart. The caring heart makes the pastor, and the caring heart nearly kills the pastor. He wouldn’t have it any other way, like Paul. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t a thousand deaths, weeping nights, deprivations, and afflictions.

It breaks his heart to see people leave the church. It doesn’t really matter why they leave, and it only helps some if they leave well. The leaving is a breaking and he feels the pressure of it if he is concerned for the church.

It breaks his heart to see saints taken in sin. “Big” sin. “Small” sin. He feels as if he’s watching a grotesque monster devour his babies. And when repentance is not forthcoming he aches all the more.

It breaks his heart to watch spouses tear their covenant in two. Few things can feel so dis-empowering. Few things can make a pastor feel his inadequacy like watching a dear couple do violence to matrimonial promises and affection.

It breaks his heart to hear the people embrace error. He wants them to feed on the pure milk of the word until they can eat the good meat. He knows health comes with truth. So he feels a certain horror at the thought that any of the people in his charge might be given over to soul-piercing and destructive lies.

It breaks his heart to discover dissensions and strife. He’s the leader of a family. He knows the blessing of peace, unity and love. His heart rips even as the people tear apart.

It breaks his heart to receive unfair criticism. Part of him doesn’t mind it at all. He’ll gladly bear the reproach. But the other part, the part that wants to be liked, the part that rightly wants the people’s affection, the part that’s trying to please the Lord, can hardly endure disparagement. His heart is wide open to the people and he wants their hearts to be open in love to him.

It breaks his heart to have his family judged or attacked. He’d rather be drawn and quartered himself than to watch the woman he loves endure harsh judgment, misrepresentation or unrighteous standards. He rather lose his own life than to lose his children from the church because they couldn’t face the daily pressure of living in a congregational fish bowl, unable to be themselves, unable to find grace all the other children receive.

It breaks his heart to miss an appointment or to fail to “be there.” He entered the ministry to care for people. He knows he’s not Jesus. He knows he can’t be everywhere. But that doesn’t stop him from mourning when he experiences that limitation. He should have been in the hospital room. He should have been at the deathbed. He should have responded to the call in the middle of the night. He couldn’t. Might’ve been for a good reason, but he still feels the heaviness of heart.

It breaks his heart to discover himself choosing to care less in order to not hurt.

Pastoral heartbreak is in direct proportion to pastoral heart. The more the pastor cares for the people the more heartbreaking is the daily pressure of concern for the church.

But he doesn’t quit. He doesn’t shrink back–or at least he tries not to. He  counts it all joy. He discovers what Stephen Chadwick discovered: ”It is a wonder what God can do with a broken heart, if He gets all the pieces” (HT: @NancyDeMoss). So he offers to God the Father all the pieces of his broken heart so that a wonder might be performed both in his life and the church. He, like Paul, learns to “boast all the more gladly about his weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on him. That is why, for Christ’s sake, he delights in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong” (2 Cor. 12:9-10). That’s how a heavy heart becomes a happy heart in pastoral ministry.

Brothers, let us embrace our heavy hearts, boast in our weaknesses, and look to Christ for power. “When the Chief Shepherd appears you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away” (1 Pet. 5:4).

Saints, let us receive our shepherds’ care, submit to their leadership, and make their labor a joy. His lighter heart will mean your higher happiness.

The Pastor’s Heavy Happy Heart

I love getting books in the mail. It probably started when I was a boy. We used to get book catalogs at school. I would flip eagerly through the heavy pages, searching for the perfect titles, then beg my hard-working parents to order books for me. They’d usually relent after first lecturing me about how hard they worked. Sometimes I’d catch secret smiles and proud looks. They had a boy who not only could read bu in fact t did read. Order money in hand, I’d give my selections and cash to my English teacher (Mrs. Griffith), and wait the 4-6 weeks for delivery. That seemed like forever! But I’d wait, holding my breath until the package came.

That excitement and anticipation lives on today. I come to the office, glance at my tray, and if there’s a brown mailing envelope my curiosity gets piqued. Oooh. What’s that? I wonder if it’s books. Sometimes I can’t even put my things in my office before going over to the tray to discover what goodies have come. I’ve even gotten skilled at associating certain envelope styles with particular publishers. Crossway mails in white envelopes with blue lettering. Most others use manila or yellow envelopes, sometimes padded to protect the precious cargo. It’s Christmas throughout the year!

This past week I received four books that each look to be real gems. One I’ve read and written a foreword for, so I know it’s a gem. The other three address vital topics and boast good endorsements. These books were so inviting I thought I’d start a new feature: Books in the Mail. When it comes to reading, I’m no Al Mohler, who reads more books before 6a.m. than most people do in an entire year. I’m not as prolific a reader as Kevin DeYoung, so I can’t post brief comments on the 20 books I read between the six sermons preached that week. I’m not the “evangelical Oprah” that Tim Challies is, able to make or break a book with a single endorsement. Nor am I a member of the literary Illuminati like Carl Trueman, who forces publishers to retract a book with little more than a glowering face and imposing accent (which somehow I hear through my computer).

I’m a local church pastor who pokes fun at his friends and receives good titles in the mail. I read slowly and can only (but gladly) pass along some “this looks interesting” recommendations from time to time. That’s what this new blog feature aims to do. So, if these titles look interesting to you, I hope you’ll pick up them up and let me know if they blessed you. If you’ve already read any of the books, please give a plug or mini-review in the comments section. Consider this the poor man’s equivalent of wikipedia for new book releases–a community of imperfect comments and additions that hopefully help us find good things to read.

Well, here are the four titles that came last week:

Crucifying Morality: The Gospel of the Beatitudes by R.W. Glenn. This one comes from the good folks at Shepherd Press. Good Reads has a page dedicated to this book.

Here’s the publisher’s description:

Christianity is not moralism. Christianity is not religiosity. Jesus was crucified because we are committed to saving ourselves by our religious stamina and moral efforts. The Beatitudes in their simplicity are not commands to be followed, principles to live by, or attitudes to adopt. They profile people who have crucified their own morality in Jesus’ death, resurrection, and rule.

Crucifying Morality walks through Matthew 5:1-12, where Jesus doesn’t prescribe what ought to be in order to experience God’s grace, but describes what is true of people who understand the grace of God.

 

Bound Together: How We Are Tied to Others in Good and Bad Choices by Chris Brauns. Zondervan publishes this new work from Brauns, who has established himself as a biblical, faithful, and practically helpful writer. Here’s how the publishers describe Bound Together:

We are not just isolated individuals. Instead, our lives are woven together with others. We have solidarity with other people—the choices one person makes affects the lives of others, for good and for bad. Because much of the pain we endure in life is in the context of relationships, this truth often strikes us as unfair. Why should a child suffer because of the choices of his parents? And on a grander scale, why do we all suffer the curse of Adam’s sin? Why should anyone be judged for someone else’s sin? In Bound Together, Chris Brauns unpacks the truth that we are bound to one another and to the whole of creation. He calls this, ‘the principle of the rope.’ Grasping this foundational principle sheds new light on marriage, the dynamics of family relationships, and the reason why everyone lives with the consequences of the sins that others commit. Brauns shows how the principle of the rope is both bad news and good news, revealing a depth to the message of the gospel that many of us have never seen before.

Rhythms of Grace: How the Church’s Worship Tells the Story of the Gospel by Mike Cosper. Crossway publishes this very interesting-looking read. Even the texture and
rhythm of the cover look interesting. I was ready to dig into the book when my worship pastor “took it off my hands.” So I need to get another copy. But I like Mike’s passion for Christ, his sensibilities, his generosity of Spirit, and his artistic skill. I’m guessing the book is filled with that blend and I’m looking forward to reading it. The publisher’s description:

Is it singing? A church service? All of life? Helping Christians think more theologically about the nature of true worship, Rhythms of Grace shows how the gospel is all about worship and worship is all about the gospel. Mike Cosper ultimately answers the question: What is worship?

 

Sixty-Six Books, One Story: A Guide to Every Book of the Bible by Paul Reynolds. Truth in advertising: Paul Reynolds serves as assistant pastor of children’s ministry and discipleship at First Baptist Church, Grand Cayman. I’m really excited about this book and pleased to see it in print. It was my honor to write the foreword. Here’s what I say in part:

The book you hold in your hands is forged in the fires of love for the Savior and for children. It’s written by the grandson of pioneering missionaries to China and the son of a faithful pastor in England. It’s written by a man with deep passion for the Word of God, who believes our children should know the Scriptures better than they know the players on their favorite sports teams or the characters from their favorite television programs. It’s written by a regular husband and father who struggles to keep family devotion engaging, who sometimes misses an evening, who longs to see his children walk in the truth. This book is written by “one of us” imperfect parents to encourage and equip both children and their parents in this holy ambition of knowing Christ better and loving Christ more than anythings else we know and love in this world.

Christian Focus publishes 66 Books, One Story. Here’s their description:

If you’ve read the Bible, you probably know some of the important battles, a good chunk of the life of Jesus, maybe a Psalm or two – but what do you know about the minor prophets and the epistles? Do you have some loose ends that need tying up? This is where a book like this helps. The Bible has one author – God – so we need to see the Bible as a whole, as God’s Word. Every book of the bible is the breath of God and the plan of Salvation spans all of Scripture. In this Bible overview each book of the Bible is summarised; background given; themes and theology explained. There are timelines throughout so that you can fix the context and chronology of the Bible in your mind. There is also a Salvation Thread feature that shows how God’s plan of redemption is not just part of the New Testament – but runs throughout the whole of the Bible.

If you pick up one or more of these titles, or if you’ve read them already, drop us a note and let us know what you think. Happy reading!

Books in the Mail

When our discussion first started, we were both surprised at how well it went, and both of us are very grateful to God, and to one another, for this great blessing. We have also been grateful to the readers and commenters who participated in this discussion in the same spirit, praying with us, and laboring to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Eph. 4:3).

Agreements
We wanted to bring our discussion to some sort of formal close, and so this is it. As we understand it, our points of agreement are:

1. Mankind is one in Adam, which means we share a common humanity, and a common slavery to sin. We together believe that mankind cannot come together in a true unity until they do so in the second Adam, the only one who is capable of overcoming the sorts of things that divide us.

2. We both believe that racism is a grievous sin, and we believe that it is a sin that has the practical effect of undercutting the gospel. Jesus came to cast down the middle wall of partition, not only between Jew and Gentile, but also to cast down any other walls that exist between any other races, nationalities, tribes, or tongues. Worthy is the Lamb, for only He could do this. But even He had to do it with the price of His own blood (Rev. 7:9).

3. The logic of the gospel is jubilee logic. This means that the messianic promises all looked forward to the day when the liberation of the world from every form of slavery would begin, and the arrival of Christ was the inauguration of God’s kingdom. This liberation from slavery begins with liberating men from their slavery to sin, but it necessarily and inexorably includes all other forms of slavery as well—whether the forms of slavery as they existed in the ancient world, or the more recent forms in our country.

4. We agree that the letter of Philemon is saturated with the idea of koinonia fellowship, one that Paul and Philemon and Onesimus all shared, and that Paul uses this spiritual reality as the foundation of his argument, urging manumission for Onesimus.

But Differences Remain
In the areas where we continue to differ, those differences are significant, although some of them may well be differences of emphasis.

Thabiti continues to believe that:

1. The history of slavery—even the existence of American chattel slavery, especially among Christians—represents a far more egregious transgression of love, the gospel, and humanity than represented in Black & Tan, which attempts a dangerous revision without sufficient historical evidence. He believes privileging man-made constitutional arguments over the liberty and full flourishing of fellow human beings betrays the gospel, betrays the command to love our neighbor, and fails to consider the balance of all the relevant biblical texts. That combination of revising the record of slavery’s inhumanity and privileging only the prima facie reading of texts compatible with one’s position leads to gross misjudgment and siding with the oppressor against the oppressed in the case of American chattel slavery.

2. A defense of “state’s rights” or the South’s withdrawal from the Union is tantamount to a defense of American chattel slavery. The inevitable consequence, had the South won the War, would have been the perpetuation of race-based slavery and all its concomitant evils. There’s no way to credibly defend the South’s position without also providing means for the continuation of its sins and oppression of Black people. There’s no way to credibly defend the South as a “Christian nation” while tolerating its practice of race-based chattel slavery, even if we hold to an emancipative gradualism. Only an immediate end to slavery would have been consistent with the “jubilee logic” of the gospel and repentant of the “grievous sin” of racism upon which the practice was based.

3. We need an unembarrassed and stalwart acceptance of every jot and tittle of the Bible, including difficult texts that pierce and challenge our own favored positions and cherished histories. After all, the word of God is a piercing double-edged sword which heals by slashes and cuts. We need to embrace what Wilson calls the “angular texts.” But we need not do that in a way that makes us impervious to charges (i.e., racism, insensitivity, etc) that we ought to hear or forgetful of the fact that different “angular texts” challenge each side of a dispute. “Angular texts” and all, as servants of the Lord we must be gentle, not quarrelsome, and certain that what we’re defending is the truth of scripture rightly understood and not just our favored positions or our pride.

4. The Constitution of the United States was never a perfect document. Its guidance then (antebellum South) as well as now (battles against abortion) is insufficient and in need of modification from time to time. To assert that the Constitutional issues at the time of the Civil War are directly contributory to the Constitutional issues surrounding abortion is a massive logical mistake. Despite some parallels, it’s better to recognize that the document has and continues to fail us at various critical points in history—slavery, women’s rights, and now the protection of unborn life. The Liberty Bell has been cracked from the beginning, a crack put there by the hypocrisy of ringing for liberty while holding slaves. The fix is not to root our current discussion in debatable matters involving the country’s racial past, but to pursue “a more perfect union” by more fully applying and defending the high ideals and values the Constitution does embody. We don’t need to look back to go forward, especially if we’re looking back with a biased eye to a “history” that did not exist. We need to be faithful in our own day, and that means not sticking your finger in the eye of people who would and ought to be cobelligerents but showing genuine love “in word and deed” (1 John 3:18) as we work together on life-and-death matters of mutual concern.

Douglas continues to believe that:

1. The “angular” texts of Scripture must be handled and understood in a way does full justice to them on their face. I believe this is possible to do in the light of redemptive gradualism, but this in turn means that not every Christian slave owner was bound to the duty of immediate manumission. After all, how do we interpret the text that says that the Israelites could hold foreign slaves forever? We can’t just agree to face these texts in principle — we have to actually face them and say out loud what they mean. Are these some of the words that are profitable for instruction (2 Tim. 3:16)? Further, because in our present day, such commitment to all the texts of Scripture is sufficient to get any Christian tagged as a racist, any a priori commitment to avoid charges of racism at all costs will necessarily morph into a regrettable softness when it comes to the issues of biblical authority on the controversies of our own day — abortion and homosexuality chief among them.

2. We have allowed our indignation at sins committed one hundred and fifty years ago to hide our complicity in the atrocities of our own day. I believe that the constitutional implications of the War and the Reconstruction amendments paved the way (in the realm of constitutional interpretation) for Roe v. Wade, and has resulted in a far greater evil being perpetrated on blacks in the 21st century than slavery ever was in the 19th. While it is good to be correct about idols toppled long ago, it is far better to be right about the idols that are currently demanding the blood of innocents, including many millions of black innocents. Our obedience before God will be reckoned in how we dealt with the sins of our own era, not the sins of another. My central interest in all these historical issues has to do with how the legal principles that were laid down then are being understood and applied today.

3. I do understand the point that support for the South would have had the downstream effect of continuing the institution of slavery, at least for a time. While the point is easy to make from this distance, it imposes, I believe, an extra-biblical requirement, and furthermore, it is one that nobody practices in our current situations. I believe it is too simplistic and is unworkable. For an American soldier to go the Middle East today and fight for “democracy” is also to fight against nations that don’t allow abortion-on-demand, and it is to fight for a nation that does. To help America is therefore to help abortion. Well, we would say, quite rightly, it isn’t quite that simple. I completely agree . . . but would also add that it wasn’t that simple in Virginia one hundred and fifty years ago. We really must use equal weights and measures. The Lord was quite insistent upon it — the judgment we use will be the judgment that is used against us (Matt. 7: 1-2).

Conclusion
In conclusion, we believe a fair summary of our conclusions would be this. It is possible for Christians to disagree about volatile issues. Moreover, it is possible — indeed necessary — to do so charitably. The strong disagreement makes us feel like enemies and strangers, while the charity reminds us of our brotherhood in Christ. The strong disagreement tests the bonds of our fellowship and love for one another, while genuine love covers over a multitude of sins and holds all virtues together. We believe we have experienced both the testing strain of strong disagreement and the preserving bonds of biblical love. We thank God for it even as we disagree about some things, agree about others, and hope to be faithful to our common Master in it all. We believe that this is what it looks like to labor to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace — it is kind of messy sometimes, but we believe it pleases God.

A Final Wrap-Up: Thabiti Anyabwile and Douglas Wilson