God's power made perfect in weakness (even in this small way)

It is Easter Monday. The last day of the Easter period (mainly noted here because Easter Sunday is a bank holiday and so it stands in lieu of a proper day off for most people). And me and my family have been sick the whole way through!

I preached on Maundy Thursday evening (on Jesus' comments about washing from John 13) and Good Friday (on the three crosses and respective responses of two criminals either side of Jesus). If you are interested, you can listen back to those here and here. 

I had planned to speak on Easter Sunday about Matthew's account of three very different responses to the resurrection event. Sadly, having croaked my way through Good Friday (I edited out the coughing fits for the online upload) it all proved too much and a contingency speaker was drafted in last minute on Sunday morning (who I am told did a stellar job). Instead of sitting under some uplifting ministry on the resurrection of Christ, I had the joy of sitting in a medical walk-in centre - wife and son in tow - to find out whether we had an infection that required antibiotics or just a horrible virus that we had to wait out (for those that care, it was the latter - which really stinks because not only is it hanging around but there is nothing we can adequately medicate with either!)

But here is what encouraged me. I felt totally sick and ill, had to help look after my family who felt much the same, and had no hope of preaching Sunday morning (that's not the encouraging bit). I also know the gentleman who stepped into the breach to cover the preaching was not looking forward to delivering an off-the-cuff word or having to deliver my poorly planned, inadequate notes that he wouldn't get sight of until about 10 minutes before the service started (his servant heart and willingness to do so is more encouraging but that's not quite it either). What was so encouraging is that despite every reason for everything to fall apart, the church was full, the service went ahead and the word was well received.

Often what we plan to be great isn't as great as we might hope. Other times, what doesn't go to plan at all and ought to be a disaster is no such thing. I am reminded time and again of Christ's words to the apostle Paul in 2 Corinthians 12:9 “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” You don't get much weaker than a preacher that physically can't deliver the sermon and a stand-in working from notes he has neither seen nor prepared!

And what more appropriate day than Easter Sunday for such things to happen. What looked like a disaster to the disciples on Good Friday, the death of their Lord on a shameful Roman cross, proved at Easter Sunday to be the plan of salvation God had ordained before the foundation of the world. What would have never been the plan of you and me was the appointed means by which God brought salvation to the world. What, by rights, should have been a total disaster and the end of the Jesus cult was God's greatest glory and the beginning of his 2000 year old church.

All that is to say, what may appear disastrous and seem destined to failure may be the very means by which God brings glory to himself. Whether that is in the small (or slightly bigger) parts of a church service or in the huge, grand sweep of salvation-history, God chooses the weak things by which to glorify himself. He chooses not to conform to human convention and wisdom. He chooses a virus to knock-out a church pastor and stop him preaching the word in order to glorify himself through another man taking his place and doing a far better job because he is almost certainly relying on the Lord in a way this pastor probably wasn't going to because his "power is made perfect in weakness".

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.

The role of the pastor's wife

I should go on record from the outset and state that I am neither a pastor nor a pastor's wife. I would like to think, though perhaps erroneously, this admission does not preclude me from comment. It stands to reason that if 'pastor's wife' exists as a role in the church, the average member should be au fait with the position and understand its function. Equally, if no such role exists, the average church member needs to recognise why not and the implications of that reality. That, at any rate, is my defence for discussing this topic.

There is one undeniable reality surrounding this issue - there is such a thing as a pastor's wife. Some pastors are married and, like it or not, their wives have crossed the imperceptible divide from 'wife' to 'pastor's wife'. So, we must accept that pastor's wives do exist. The issue, however, revolves around whether this label is merely a factual descriptor of an objective reality or whether it, in some way, represents a role in the church.

Let us start by tackling what I, rather facetiously, called 'the imperceptible divide from 'wife' to 'pastor's wife''. The truth is, if we are going to refer to 'pastor's wives', prior to her husband becoming pastor the woman was not merely a wife but was a teacher's wife, a lawyer's wife, an electrician's wife or whatever depending on her husband's previous job. It is, for some reason, only poignant to add the man's job to the term 'wife' upon his calling to the ministry. As an objective descriptor of reality, it seems odd to only bother with it in the pastorate. Either it is a worthwhile descriptor which should be applied across all occupations or, it is of almost no value and should be dropped (for further discussion on this point see 'Using the term pastor as a title'). It is made all the more stark for women who have careers of their own. Why is it their husband's job title supersedes their own? Such women are not only pastor's wives but may be teachers, lawyers, electricians, mothers in their own right.

Although an oddity within the working world, we must nevertheless concede that 'pastor's wife' is a factual description of a woman married to a pastor. However, how far can we say it is a specific role within the church? To put it bluntly, it isn't. There is no recognition in scripture of any such office (for those who do not recognise pastorates, these same arguments apply to the office of elder too). The wife of a pastor, or specifically elder, is only mentioned as part of the qualifications for eldership in 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6. In each case, the emphasis is on the man to be 'the husband of one wife'. There is no instituting of an office in the church nor is there any definition of a specific role.

Why is this significant? All too often churches expect pastor's wives to carry out an endless list of duties without the benefit of contract, salary or even gratitude. It is almost as if the church sees the pastor's wage - specifically assigned to him in exchange for his pastoral work for the church - as also buying his wife's service too in some sort of a buy one get one free labour bargain. But, if pastor's wife is not an office outlined in scripture then to expect a pastor's wife to be more active, more involved and carry a greater burden than the average church member is unfair and unreasonable. It strikes me the reason church ministry is the anomaly which insists on referring to the wife of a pastor by her husband's job is specifically to encourage this sort of deal.

We may argue that part of a wife's role is to support her husband in his work and indeed it is. However, it is not the woman's role to do her husband's work. Nor is it the woman's role to do auxiliary work because of her husband's position. Nobody would expect a woman to become a TA and work gratis for a school simply because her husband was a teacher. At the very least, were she to undertake the role, the school would pay her a salary but there would be no compulsion to go for the position because of her husband. Most people would rightly agree this is appropriate. Why then do these basic principles suddenly not apply in the church? It is perfectly possible that churches may find roles which they believe are best carried out by the pastor's wife. That is fine, but she should not be expected to take the role for nothing. Equally, if she does not want the role for whatever reason, she should not be compelled to take it. 

The pastor's wife is not a role or office within the church. It is a factual description of a woman married to a pastor. Therefore, she should have no more burden or expectation placed upon her than any other member of the church. All too often pastor's wives are expected to plug all the gaps in the church and to take on all the jobs that other members are unwilling to bear. The pastor's wife must already act as a support to her husband who is unable to unload on anybody else in the church. This seems burden enough! Churches need to be sensitive to this and recognise that pastor's wives are not simply there to plug gaps in the church and act as cheap, compelled labour.