Rev Barry Trayhorn forced to resign for quoting Bible in chapel

The salient facts of this case are these:

• HMP Littlehey is a category C men's prison and Young Offender institute in Cambridgeshire. Chapel is entirely voluntary. Nobody is required or forced to attend, sing hymns or listen to scripture.
• Rev Trayhorn is an ordained Pentecostal minister who worked as a gardener at the prison. He has helped out with prison chapel services at the invitation and under the supervision of the coordinating Chaplain, the Rev’d David Kinder, on behalf of the Criminal Justice Forum in the Diocese of Ely.
• Whilst leading worship in chapel in May 2014 Rev Trayhorn quoted the passage 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (the quoted version is unknown).
• Four days later, a complaint was lodged against Rev Trayhorn. He was immediately suspended from helping with chapel services, and was subsequently told that his comments during the service were ‘homophobic’ and breached national prison policy.
• Rev Trayhorn was informed a disciplinary hearing would follow. He was subsequently signed off work with a stress related illness. During this time, his manager visited him three times at home to discuss work-related issues. On two of those occasions, a senior prison official was present.
• On 4th November 2014, Rev Trayhorn felt that he had no choice but to resign. Two days later, a disciplinary hearing was held in his absence, when he was given a ‘final written warning’.
• Rev Trayhorn, backed by the Christian Legal Centre, is now taking HMP Littlehey to an employment tribunal where he is claiming he was forced out of his main paid job as a gardener at the jail because of the intimidation he suffered as a result of his faith.

Several things are worthy of note and a few comments seem necessary.

First, as the Archbishop Cranmer blog notes, Rev Trayhorn's claim is not entirely unreasonable. For "it was not Barry Trayhorn’s skills as a paid gardener which had been called into question, but his competence to lead worship as an unpaid chaplain’s assistant." By all accounts, Rev Trayhorn's gardening skills have not entered into any discussion and there has been no complaint received over his horticultural prowess. It does, therefore, appear very much as though his quote from the Bible has directly led to the loss of his job as gardener.

Second, Rev Trayhorn received a final written warning at a disciplinary hearing in his absence. Again, as noted by Cranmer, given his gardening skills were not under scrutiny and he had "no previous misdemeanours or complaints recorded against him, it is not unreasonable to conclude that he was disciplined for quoting scriptures about sin which were deemed unpalatable by sinners."

Third, it seems worth pointing out that Rev Trayhorn did not major on sexual sin at the expense of other forms of sin. It does appear his quote includes the sexually immoral (that is the heterosexual immoral as the verse also goes on to mention those who practice homosexuality), idolaters, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers and swindlers. Across the range of those sins, and in line with traditional evangelical thought, the list takes aim at just about all people everywhere. It is a more extensive list of Paul's basic comment in Romans 3:23: "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God".

Fourth, Rev Trayhorn was not disciplined for offering a particular interpretive view of the verses quoted. In fact, the man only went on to say "the Christian message [is] that God will forgive those who repent." It is, therefore, highly likely that Rev Trayhorn was disciplined specifically for quoting directly from the Bible.

All of this adds up to the ludicrous position that suggests it is now a felony to state the Bible's ethical teaching to convicted felons. It is equally ridiculous that prisoners, many of whom have been incarcerated for heinous sexual crimes which both the penal system and wider society recognise as ethically wrong, can claim offence at the biblical position (which is in agreement with both the penal system and wider society on this issue) and make a felon out of the man who dared quote it. Truly this is a nonsense.

Aside from all of this, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that significant portions of the Bible are now prohibited for public proclamation. We are censoring the ethical teachings of a book that played a central role in forming the ethical standard by which our own penal system abides. We are deeming a book that was, until very recently, a central part of school daily assemblies and a copy of which was given to every hotel room in the land to be incompatible with nebulous "British values" which, if they even exist at all, have been drawn from the selfsame source.

Most troubling of all, we already know about the government's plans to crack down on "extremism in all its forms" (see here, here and here etc). It seems quite clear that ill-defined "British values" must be pressed into every sphere of British public and private life. Anything that does not accord with them will be clamped down. The Home Secretary has already made it clear that those who speak against orthodox cultural utterances stand to lose charitable status and assets such as privately held buildings and cash funds. Some evangelical preachers who pose no physical threat to anybody - regardless of whether you agree with their position or the way in which they communicate it - have begun to feel the force of these measures (eg here).

And this seems to be yet another case of it happening. The chapel at HMP Littlehey is neither a public space nor a mandatory requirement for all prisoners. It is attended voluntarily and nobody is forced to partake in worship or to listen to God's word against their will. It is, therefore, utterly incredible that the Bible can be censored during a private meeting of Christian worship. Whilst this particular case beggars belief, it is all the more troubling that what is happening in HMP Littlehey and has already reached into some private meeting houses, will increasingly impede the public reading of God's word and the clear proclamation and explanation of what it contains in more and more churches. 

Measures intended to impede acts of terrorism and those propagating such acts are increasingly being used against all manner of political protesters and benign religious groups who pose no physical threat to anybody but who nonetheless do not assent to cultural orthodoxy. The measures are politically obtuse and utterly cowardly. For it seems clear enough that to avoid being seen to target one particular religious group, all people of faith - regardless of what they actually teach and believe or their propensity to call for the death of the infidel - are embroiled in a war against one small group, within one particular strain, of one particular branch of one particular religion. By any measure, it is not fair, it is not equitable, it is not reasonable and it should not stand.

Two interesting posts on approaching ministry

Here are two interesting posts on approaches to ministry.

The first, accessible here, deals with the issue of using ministry as a means of personal fulfilment. I have touched upon this here, specifically in respect to those of us trying to find ministry opportunities. However, the post to which I have linked deals with this same underlying issue but in relation to its dangers once we have undertaken a specific ministerial role.

The second, accessible here, deals with issues related to ministry and church planting. Specifically, it discusses the importance of having a sound hermeneutic by which we can successfully handle scripture. It offers a warning that although our theological conclusions may be true, predominantly because those to whom we have aligned ourselves are sound, without a good hermeneutical base our theological inclinations can change as quickly as our ephemeral infatuations with big personalities and we stand little chance of training up others to handle the word effectively.

Both helpful posts and worth a moment of your time.

Pastors and Teachers or Pastor-Teachers?

Paul, in discussing the gifts that God gives the church, tells us in Ephesians 4:11-12 'And truly He gave some to be apostles, and some to be prophets, and some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers (MKJV)'. There is little debate regarding the first three gifts, each representing a distinct role. However, there is a question over whether "pastors and teachers" denotes one spiritual gift or two.

Those who ascribe "pastors and teachers" as one gift tend to argue δὲ is repeated before each individual gift yet this article appears only once before the last two nouns. Grammatically, this signals a change and suggests "pastor and teachers" is a unit distinct from the preceding series. However, the discussion does not revolve around this grammatical rule, over which there can be no debate, but the nature of this distinct unit.

Bill Mounce argues:

The use of a single article with multiple plural nouns indicates a single unit, but it does not necessarily mean the two nouns are identical. This same construction occurs earlier in 2:20 and joins “apostles” and “prophets,” but these are not identical gifts.

Hoehner suggests that the distinction is that the prior gifts are expressed in an itinerate ministry and the later two are gifts for a local ministry. Harold’s discussion of this is excellent and worth reading (Ephesians. An Exegetical Commentary published by Baker).

Hoehner goes on to quote Wallace’s argument that the grammar suggests that the first (“pastors”) is a subset of the second (“teachers”). Everyone who is gifted to shepherd a local flock of believers is gifted to teach, but the gift of teaching does not necessarily mean the person is gifted to shepherd (e.g., administration, exhortation).

This leads us to the view that “pastor” and “teacher” are somewhat distinct gifts. Whilst all pastors must be able to teach (cf. 1 Timothy 3:2), not all teachers are gifted to pastor. Mounce comments:

God has gifted some people to do everything. These are the wonderful pastors who have a small enough church that they can care for everybody and everything. I have a friend who does this. He loves smaller churches. He pastors them for about ten years, takes a sabbatical, and then looks for another small church to love and care for. He is just now headed for his third church as their pastor. And he will pastor them, and that by definition includes the calling to teach them. Ultimately churches are to be led by their teachers, which is why every pastor and elder must of necessity be able to teach (1 Timothy 3:2). 

But there are other people who are gifted to teach. They may not have great administrative gifts, and may not be very good and sitting down with someone and listening to their issues. But they still love their God and their people just as fervently, and they show that love by spending a vast number of hours in preparing their sermons.

The interpretation of "pastors and teachers" as one gift often leads to the view that preaching and pastoral ministry amount to the same thing. On this view, church members with complex pastoral needs are often left high and dry as preaching alone is considered the remedy for all ills. Alternatively, this view can lead to a culture in which the preacher is expected to do everything - even handling complex pastoral matters outside his area of gifting - in direct conflict with both Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12. In the worst cases, it can lead to ministry appointments based solely on teaching ability by churches expecting a pastoral worker despite failing to seek any evidence of such ability. As a result, preaching is viewed as the the solution to all pastoral matters because the minister is uncomfortable doing anything else and the congregation insists on a pastoral element to his role despite appointing him based on his teaching gift alone. 

Church ministers with both teaching and pastoral gifting are a rarity indeed! However, this should come as no surprise if we understand Ephesians 4:11 as denoting two distinct gifts. Moreover, Bill Mounce's comment, to which I would subscribe - everyone who is gifted to shepherd a local flock should also be gifted to teach but not everyone who is gifted to teach is necessarily gifted to shepherd a local flock - should lead us to conclude that we are more likely to find gifted teachers than gifted pastors within our congregations. 

Therefore, as title would suggest, we should be seeking to appoint pastors based predominantly on their pastoral gifting, as opposed to their teaching ability. Of course, as expressly stated in 1 Timothy 3:2, pastors must be able to teach; however, this is not the overriding qualification to the detriment of all else. For how is the full-time ministers time predominantly spent if not dealing with pastoral issues? Preaching is but a part, though a nonetheless important one, of the wider role. Indeed, it is possible to have continued sound ministry from lay members or itinerate speakers but pastoral ministry cannot be outsourced. Yet how often are pastors appointed based on pastoral ability over and above their teaching gift?

Perhaps a plurality of elders is required to meet this need as every elder must be able to teach. If we have elders who are able to teach, and this is a scriptural criteria for eldership, to appoint a full-time minister predominantly for his teaching ability - though, of course, he should have such a gift - seems rather to miss the point. Instead, although able to teach, we should be appointing full-time ministers on the basis of their pastoral gifting in the knowledge that we have other elders who, by definition of the role, can teach. Perhaps it is because preaching is viewed as the summum bonum, though that is not to say it is unimportant, that we have emphasised it in such a way that our churches may be full of people 'able to teach', with fewer who are able to pastor and even less who can do both.

Church/Family Balance

The Gospel Coalition blog have posted an excellent article titled '3 reflections on leading your family well'. Let me strongly urge you to read it.

We often talk about work/life balance in relation to secular jobs but we rarely apply this same logic to the church. If anything, church is often pushed to the detriment of family life and a lack of quality time spent with our family can be brushed aside as sacrificial service in the Lord's work. The Gospel Coalition highlights the clear and obvious danger of this for church ministers and offers three reflections on how to avoid the problems of church/family imbalance. However, I would venture that this is equally significant for those not in the full-time employ of the church.

The TGC blog states 'A day off is not just a good idea... it is essential'. I agree with the sentiment and, for most working ministers, this is a sensible and pragmatic step. However, for those not employed by the church, there is a secular job to take into account as well. The minister's service in the church is tied up directly with their day job. Therefore, it is feasibly possible to insist, as a church, they take one day off during the week. However, for the majority of the congregation, at least Monday-Friday is eaten up with secular work meaning service in the church must revolve around evenings and weekends. This, in some respect, makes it harder for the average member to strike a balance between serving in the church, a secular job and spending meaningful time with family. Where a minister has to contend with balancing two things (job/church and family) the average member must contend with three (job, church and family). Whilst a minister may take one day off in the week, that option is often not open to the church member who holds a secular job and wishes to serve meaningfully in the church whilst not neglecting their familial responsibilities. 

For the minister, I suspect a major issue is feeling they must plug all the gaps that cannot (or will not) be filled through the service of members. This can lead to overwork, often at the expense of family relationships. For the average member, a secular job is generally considered a necessity. The church, quite rightly, encourages individuals to use what time they have in the Lord's service. Unfortunately, with the immovable obligation of a secular job, this often ends up being at the expense of quality family time. Alternatively, one might set aside time for family and, with the pressure of secular work, quickly find themselves feeling guilty for a lack of service in the church. I suspect the sum of all this boils down to charity on all sides. Members must recognise the pressures of pastoral ministry and seek to help ministers strike an appropriate church/family balance by allowing them a day off and, more importantly, respecting it when it is given. Equally, ministers must be wary of pressing church members into service to the detriment of their family life bearing in mind occupational obligations.

However, all of this does very little to tackle the real issue. The central question is what does an actual work/church/family balance look like and what pragmatic steps can be taken to obtain it? I suspect those of us inclined toward introspective self-flagellation are always liable to feel we favour one thing over another. Turning down the opportunity to serve in the church because our wives and children deserve more quality time is liable to induce as much guilt as taking on such obligations. The standard church line, which essentially challenges individuals' use of time as a means of encouraging service in the church, is not an unfair or illegitimate one. However, it is only valid when serving in the church is contrasted with our personal desires and pastimes as opposed to our obligations and responsibilities. Neglecting our familial responsibilities is just as dishonouring as a refusal to serve the Lord in other ways. Stories abound of individuals who hate the church because their parents' seemed more concerned with meetings and the salvation of strangers than they did in the lives of their own children.

Ideally, one would put aside one day to be spent with our families alongside our secular work and service in the church. Unfortunately, the demands of secular jobs are ever increasing and the days of 9-5 are long gone. With most of the Western world in recession, those who do manage to hold onto their jobs are being asked to pick up the slack of the ones who have been let go. It is nigh on impossible to try and make dogmatic statements about how we reach an adequate balance in the modern world. Ultimately, it seems there is little more we can do than take a charitable view of others ability to serve and give an honest assessment of our own circumstances. It may even be that different things take priority during our different seasons of life.