Never Mind Andrew’s Sin, What About Mars Hill’s Sin?

  By Derek Ouellette | January 25, 2012 - 11:33 pm | Culture 11 Comments

About a quadrillion people read Matthew Paul Turners article the other day about a guy named Andrew, a member of Mars Hill (Mark Driscoll’s church), who had committed a sin. Andrew was engaged when one night he messed around with a woman who was not his fiancee. He stopped short of sex – feeling convicted – confessed to his fiancee the next day and also to a leader and friend in his study group. Soon other leaders knew about his sin – the sexual one and the deceit of not confessing sooner – and the leaders sought to help him. He willing submitted himself to their authority. He endured meeting after meeting after meeting after meeting. Okay. Fine. Situations like these take time to work through. I get that. But the problem here is that the meetings involved so many people. These are delicate situations that need to be handled delicately. If Andrew was repentant, cooperative and actively seeking restoration, than the proper pastoral thing to do is to keep the situation as tightly knit as possible. That means the fewer the hands involved, the better.

After several months of these meetings, Andrew surprisingly received a “disciplinary contract” outlining his sins and responsibilities. I could see how this could be very confusing. He had spent months submitting to the leadership of the church, cooperating and confessing repeatedly. Is a ‘disciplinary contract’ really necessary (or even biblical)? I suppose when a church becomes an institution everything becomes red tape.

I wonder how many counselling sessions the man living in sexual immorality in the Corinthian church had to endure before he was considered restored (1 Cor 5)? The difference here (and this is a big difference) is that the man in sexual sin in Corinth was not interested in repentance, so Paul instructs the church to put him out. But Andrew was the one to bring up his sin and seek repentance. Don’t underestimate the significance of that fact.

When the man in the Corinthian church finally repented, lets face it, he probably poured his heart out before God, had a long conversation with his leaders who then forgave him and allowed him back into fellowship. We can’t be sure, but at the least I doubt he had a million meetings to endure and a disciplinary contract to sign. The church is more organic than that. It’s Christ’s body. The man repented and sought forgiveness. Let it be done. If he needs counselling that is a separate matter from “church discipline”. If he’s being counselled it’s because he needs help, but if he’s being disciplined it’s because he’s in rebellion and sin. Which of the two – given Andrew’s actions up to the point of the “disciplinary contract” (based on the information we have) – should he have undergone, counseling for help, or discipline for sin and rebellion?

Paul tells the Corinthian church after the man repented and sought forgiveness, “you should forgive and console him, so that he may not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. So I urge you to reaffirm your love for him.” (2 Cor 2:7). Let’s get one thing straight: the leaders of Mars Hill should have done this MONTHS ago, right after Andrew confessed his sin, repented and sought help. THAT is when forgiveness and affirming love should have taken place. The meetings should have been approached not as discipline, but as discipleship(!) and a ‘disciplinary contract’ should have never seen the light of day (Consider the dire parallel: if we still require discipline after we repent and seek forgiveness, should God still punish us by sending us to purgatory? Or have we been forgiven? And should not the church then do the same, remembering that God will only forgive us according to the measure we forgive others! Matt 6:12?).

At this point Andrew realizes he’s in the wrong place. He was correct to sense intuitively that the leaders had entered – intentionally or not – into an abusive posture towards him. This was no longer a God-honoring direction. What should he have done? Who could he have gone to? Should he have just laid down and allowed these charades to continue? When would it have stopped? He knew that he had to go. It was the only option that would prevent him from becoming the victim. There are other godly churches and other godly leaders who could help him.

So Andrew sent a reply removing himself from the situation and from Mars Hill. A leader sent him a reply to his reply urging him to reconsider and, in fact, warning him that leaving will result in “escalation”. That “escalation” was a published letter to the congregation announcing all of Andrew’s sins and instructing them on how to respond should Andrew seek to talk and hang out with any of them.

The way the church leaders handled the situation at Mars Hill is precisely backwards to Paul’s instructions to the Corinthians. Paul tells them to send out the unrepentant sinner and when he repents, to embrace him and forgive him and reaffirm their love for him. But Mars Hill excommunicated the repentant brother and rather than affirming him, they publically humiliated him.

The leaders seek Matthew 18 as grounds for their actions. There’s a problems with that. In Matthew Jesus is talking about someone who is unwilling to concede his sin and seek repentance whereas Andrew was a repentant believer who was seeking restoration. There was no need for “two or three witnesses” to go to Andrew because it was Andrew who sought to confess to two witnesses. Therefore the escalation of Matthew 18 does not apply to this situation.

Now, the thing is, while not minimizing Andrew’s sin, I’d like to point out that the leadership of Mars Hill has effectively lead their entire congregation into sin. We have been talking about Andrew’s sin, but what about the sins committed by the leaders? The sin of abuse of power? The sin of manipulation? The sin of twisting the Bible to keep a brother down? Who’s going to hold the leaders of Mars Hill responsible?

I understand the desire many of us have to hope and see the best in our spiritual leaders, but my rose coloured glasses were knocked off my face in 1997 – and a few times since. Abuses in church leadership happen as leaders develop a sense of entitlement. I know. I can count a half a dozen different and unrelated instances that I have witness first hand. The temptation for authoritative abuse is substantial and addictive. It spreads like cancer throughout an entire leadership team. It becomes like a drug you don’t even know your addicted too. We should not minimize this sin. We often look at pastors who have scandalously fallen into “moral sin” which often means sins having to do with sex or money. But abuse of God’s people and a misuse of God’s word is also a moral sin (James 3:1).

This is one of the problems with how we run the church today. Corporate Christianity, it comes in all shapes and sizes. And who’s going to hold the boys at the top responsible? Until now there has not been much by way of widespread accountability (since leaders of the same chicken coop tend to cluck together). But the blogosphere is changing that. For the better or worse, the broader Christian community has for the first time the ability to stand up – the multitudes who have been victimized by authoritative abuse by church leaders – and hold them accountable. Just read the hundreds of comments left under Turner’s post. Each one tells a story of abuse. And of course, I have my own story to tell.

I should point out that I serve on the board of my church and have loads of respect for my pastor. I have no axe to grind toward church leadership in general. But at some point we have to admit, in terms of our Christian culture, that we have a real problem and misunderstanding of what “authority” means in the body of Christ today.

[Addendum: I realized that Matthew's post only tells one side of the story. Fair enough. But if that story is only 50% true - I'm inclined to think it's more than that, but for sake of argument - that still leaves us with a church leadership that has abused it's power. Nobody is minimizing what Andrew did (and certainly not Andrew who willing confessed and underwent months of counselling), but there were plenty of serious sins committed by all parties involved. At least Andrew has shown an attitude toward repentance. It'll be interesting to see if Mars Hill will make any public statements on the matter from the pressure of the blogospher. Though experience in these situations tells me it is unlikely.]

Leave a comment!

Holiness and Mission: Two Sides of One Coin

  By Derek Ouellette | January 25, 2012 - 9:47 am | Ethic, holiness Leave a comment

First, holiness:

I used to think that holiness was a private matter between me and God. Holiness, as I understood, was a list of do’s and don’ts’. It was purely about private actions that filtered down into moral upstanding. Eventually the list of do’s and don’t's went beyond the Bible’s own admonitions, the fruit of the spirit et cetera, and grew to include what clothes to wear, what movies to see, what music to listen to and what words to use. Eventually I’ll be hold that my tattoo has all but secured my journey to hell.

Now, mission:

I used to think that Christian mission began and ended with a zealous call to get people saved. Everything I did with non-believers was to that end. I was trained in Bible College to establish relationships with people and to give someone food for the sole purpose of getting them to trust you enough that they will hear your gospel presentation and get saved. And what happens if they’re not interested in getting saved? The relationship was a disingenuous pretence that you quickly abandon.

Holiness and Mission: Hand in Glove

My views have changed quite radically. I still believe in a need for personal moral character and I believe that a part of our mission is to preach a gospel message of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. But that pictures (which used to be the complete picture) is dangerously shallow. In reflecting on holiness lately I find myself continually drawn into mission. At first I reacted against this, “that can’t be right, I’m trying to think about holiness, not mission”. But the more I thought about holiness, the more I thought about mission too.

Here’s why.

The biblical narrative begins by telling us that God created humans as ikons made to reflect God’s glory into the world. But we messed up. Big time. Ever since. Yet in the Old Testament we are told “be holy, because I, the Lord your God, am holy” (Lev 19:2). Be like me, God says. Reflect me, my character and actions. Of course the law is there to show us the way, but even in the law we don’t just have commands about moral uprightness, but also of loving our neighbour and feeding the poor. Still, humans have never been able to look at some stone tablets and say, that’s a great example, I’ll do it. We need living examples. The problem was, there were none. Ever.

So God incarnates himself, Jesus Christ, and says here I am, let me show you how. Jesus instructs his disciples to “be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt 5:48). Later on, Jesus tells one of his disciples, “anyone who has seen me, has seen the Father” (John 14:9).

So God says be like me and let me show you how, then he incarnates himself and does incredible things. He’s not just morally upright, but also socially active as if to say, a part of what it means to be holy is to be socially active. Why? Because holiness is a consequences of divine love. That is why the fruit of the Spirit begins: “Love…” and the great ode to love chapter (1 Cor 13) is a chapter on how to treat your neighbour. That is why when Jesus says, “be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect”, he makes that statement on the heels of this one: “love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you” (Matt 5:44).

When holiness is thought of – intentionally or implicitly – as being in a category of its own, the biblical picture becomes distorted and legalism ensues. But when it is thought of in the proper context of love and divine likeness – God’s own character and actions – holiness and mission cannot be separated. In fact, to do so, would be unholy.

 

Steve Jobs (In Review)

  By Derek Ouellette | January 24, 2012 - 8:46 am | Book Reviews 1 Comment

Steve Jobs
By Walter Isaacson
5 Stars (out of 5)

First, the biographer:

Steve Jobs by Walter Isaacson. Sigh. What a great read. Not to make this about another blogger’s review, but I cannot for the life of me understand why Tim Challies says, after reminding us of Jobs powerful reality distortion field and asking the question if Isaacson successfully resisted it, that:

“I am not convinced that he did [resist]. It seems that over the course of the book, Isaacson’s writing changes. By the end he is not just describing products, but offering gushing editorials about them. Meanwhile, the negative side of Jobs is downplayed in favor of his innovation. I suppose we cannot know for sure, but it seemed to me like Isaacson may have been yet another person who fell under the mysterious sway of Steve Jobs.”

While the review on the whole is not terrible, that paragraph is hogwash. Isaacson’s editorial comments increase, especially as the book reaches the final few years, because that is when Isaacson himself became a part of the narrative. Yet even still I find that like a steady guide Isaacson accounts Jobs berating temperament as much near the end as near the beginning. He also talks about Jobs passion for esthetics and innovation and, yes, even fierce battles as much near the end as near the beginning.

In June 2011 while Jobs was in intense pain and energy deprived he called an old friend, someone back in the eighties who was charged with keeping Jobs tantrums at bay. He asked her, “Tell me, what was I like when I was young?” She replied, “You were very impetuous and very difficult” and added, “But your vision was compelling” (p.537). Isaacson’s biography bears this out, and it bears it out right to the end.

Now the biography:

Reading through Steve Jobs biography certain personalities often came to mind. Jobs reminded me of Alexander the Great. Leader of a small group of people bent on taking on the mighty global Persians of IBM and Microsoft. Often the first over the wall, his passion and personal discipline created a reality distortion field in which his peers were engulfed so that suddenly the impossible would become possible.

Also of Herod the Great, determined not just to build an empire, but also to build monuments that would survive him by generations. He did this with his retail stores, but more monumental are the blueprints Jobs left behind of Apple’s future headquarters, a spaceship-esque looking campus that may architecturally rival any building in the world (See an artistic rendering here).

And of Darth Vader for whom failure was not an option. One top engineer said that a mouse that goes in circular directions (rather than just up-down side-to-side) could not be built; that the technology had not yet been invented. Jobs fired him the next day and promoted his lieutenant whose first words out of his mouth were, “I can build that mouse”.  Or the time when MobileMe flopped and Jobs lined up the entire team of MobileMe creators and engineers on a stage and berated them for “screwing up” so badly. He then publically fired the head of the department on the spot in front of them all and promoted the next guy and charged him with the responsibility to create “the Cloud”.

But also like Vader, Jobs had huge abandonment father-son issues. Even though he eventually discovered who his real father was, he refused see him. And he died having never met him. Jobs would often look to other men who entered his life as “being like a father to me”, and when they would inevitably make a businesswise decision that did not have Jobs best interest in mind, he would cry “so-and-so was like a father to me, and then he betrayed me”. The irony is that Jobs would abandon his first child for the first ten years of her life, and they never did manager to cultivate a strong relationship. Later on when he married and had three beautiful children he tended to favor his son, Reed.

Steve Jobs also had a serious messianic complex, and everyone knew it. When he showed up at a staff party in the early eighties dressed as Jesus, there were no shortages of eye rolling going on. And as he was showing Isaacson the blueprints for Apple’s future headquarters he pointed out how the future complex could surround St. Peter’s Square in Rome. Jobs mission from start to finish was to “change the world”. Unfortunately that mission Jobs deemed more important than individuals. And so Jobs was willing to do whatever it took to accomplish it. And he did.

Steve Jobs was one of the most passionate and disciplined person I have probably ever read about. Whatever you say about the man, those two facts alone are intensely admirable. In fact I think that’s what his reality distortion field was made of, passion and discipline. If something was impossible but Jobs believed it possible against all odds and data, somehow the impossible would become possible. To put this into perspective for my readers, I believe that if Jobs became a Christian and devoted his passion and discipline to the faith his legacy would rival Luther or Wesley. I’m convinced of that.

An early conviction of Jobs that remained to the end was an undying commitment to a closed, rather than an open, system. Jobs believed that everything that goes into a computer should be intimately connected. The hardware, software, advertising, sales, distribution, the whole package should be one. Some people buck against this. They want an open system because open systems offer more choices. You can choose the brand of computer you want (Compaq, IBM, Toshiba et cetera) and choose the software you want or use existing software to hack your own projects. The problem is that because these parts (the software and hardware) are not made just for each other and because the more hands that get in there the more fumbled they become, they, to use Jobs expression, “are shit”. They never worked fluidly. Jobs’ closed system, though a result of his incisively controlling nature but also out of his conviction that most people are too busy “doing whatever they do best, and they want us to do what we do best”, has produced better and more reliable products that allow users to develop their own creativity. When in the eighties and nineties this philosophy left Apply eating Microsoft’s dust, come the digital age this old philosophy set Apply up in a way the competition could not have predicted and were not prepared for: the ability to sync flawlessly and fluidly along with an incredible user interface. Of course in order for it to work you need to own all Apple products. But the result, for this blogger anyways, has been nothing short of liberating.

Jobs was an extreme character. He took some flack for certain moral stances (like refusing to allow developers to create porn apps for Apple products despite a great deal of pressure) and he was always faithful to his wife. He could be brutally honest most of the time, but often he would lie for no reason at all. He had a binary view of the world. Everybody fit into one of two categories. Either you were a “hero” or a “shithead”. There was no in between. Someone could travel from hero to shithead or shithead to hero, sometimes within a single day.

“The same was true of products, ideas, even food: Something was either ‘the best thing ever,’ or it was shitty, brain-dead, inedible.” (p.561)

Still, Jobs drive, his passion and deep convictions are compelling. He set out to change the world. Look around. Watch T.V. Surf the web. I think Jobs influence will be felt for a long, long time. Not just in products that he helped create before he died, but in the brain-children of the products on Apple’s horizon.

An Aside Word

As an aside, Reed will be an interesting character to watch. According to Isaacson, Reed had all of Jobs strengths – his ability to negotiate, his drive and passion, love to combine art with technology – with none of Jobs weaknesses. Reed has his mothers temperament. Calm, steady, compassionate.

I can relate with Jobs father-son issues. I understand the deep rooted desire to seek out potential father-like figures, to cling to them and look to them as such, and to feel the intense let-down when they don’t live up to the role I assign to them. I’ve been doing this my whole life, and I still do it.

Steve Jobs by Walter Isaacson. What a great read.

Some Cool Things From Apple Coming Soon

  By Derek Ouellette | January 23, 2012 - 10:23 pm | Uncategorized Leave a comment

Off topic.

I love technology. Especially the kind that works really well, allows me to be creative and doesn’t crash every five minutes. When I converted to Apple a few months back I found the perfect fit. I purchased my first Mac in October 2011, will be getting an iPhone as soon as my contract with my sucky Palm Pre is up and I search the internet daily for the latest “unconfirmed” rumour about the forthcoming iPad 3 (or 2s or whatever).

Here’s a few cool things from Apple that either just came out or will be coming out soon.

1. iBooks II: Apply is attempting to enter the text book industry (geared mostly to highschoolers at this point) by offering digital text books on the iPad. Will it fly? I have some thoughts on that which I’ll share in an upcoming post.

2. iPad 3: There are a million rumours right now about the next generation of the iPad, including when it will be released (on Steve Jobs birthday, Feb 24th, or sometime in March). It is expected to be faster, have better camera’s and a better screen (perhaps a retina screen). But the latest rumour is that it will have Siri.

3. iPad 2: Surprise, surprise. While typically Apple retires products as soon as the next generation hits the market, there are confirmed reports that Apple plans to leave the iPad 2 around for awhile and lower the price to compete with other less expensive tablets. Some estimates have the iPad 2 starting between $299 and $399. Cool.

4. iPhone 5: I haven’t been too interested in following the developments of the iPhone 5 but the big thing seems to be that it will have G4 LTE capabilities and will be coming out late in 2012.

5. Apple Flatscreen TV w/Siri: Imagine a flatscreen TV that is voice activated, has a built in computer, syncs with all of your household electronics (if you’re an Apple user of course) and does not require a remote control to operate it. Well we won’t have to imagine for long since reports have it that a prototype has already been built. Some reports say that it may hit the market as early as this time next year.

Ultimate Evidence – Part 2 Paul Was Not A Pentecostal

  By Derek Ouellette | January 19, 2012 - 11:17 pm | Holy Spirit 1 Comment

… neither was he a Calvinist, nor an Arminian and, no, Jesus was not a Dispensationalist (even though someone on Facebook tried to convince me otherwise). To try and apply any number of later systems of theology back on to Paul is like saying that the first century habitants of the British Isle spoke English. It just doesn’t make any sense. (And if you think they did speak English, please stop reading this post and visit Wikipedia).There’s a word for this, it’s called anachronism. It is the error of taking something of a later time period and imposing it back onto any earlier time. It really agitates historians when people commit anachronism. But this post is not only going to attempt to show that Paul did not share the modern Pentecostal view of tongues-evidence, but that he actually wrote to counteract that very idea.

Overdue Adjustments

“It is of great significance that the great outpouring of God’s Spirit in the twentieth century was granted to, of the many Christian bodies available, a people whose primary concern was the ethical issues of life – the Holiness movement! That fact should speak volumes to us.” – Newman, p.71

Larry Newman has a section in his book which well reflects one of my complaints in the first blog of this series; namely that Pentecostalism needs to readjust ‘ethics’ in its paradigm. If tongues is the evidence that one has been Spirit-Baptized then what about one who speaks in tongues but lives an unethical life? “This adjustment is sorely needed in our day” says Newman [p.85]. “When Pentecostals are sometimes noted not so much for their charismatic expressions as for their lack of character, something is surely amiss”. (For examples of this read “this” article.)

Newman adds,

“Chapters 10 through 14 [of 1 Cor.] contains Paul’s argument that the charismatic is meaningless without the ethical dimension of the Christian life. Positioned in the middle of these chapters is Paul’s great ode to love. That is not accidental! It is intentional!” [p.86]

Another adjustment Newman calls attention to is the need to add emphasis to the “charisma of discernment” and adds, “We are rather naive in this day relative to manifestations of the Spirit. We have a tendency to accept any and all such expressions as being of the Spirit, with little concern that they might be the product of the flesh, or possibly, of demons” [p.88]; “I am afraid that in our eagerness to see people experience Spirit-Baptism we may prematurely declare someone to be Spirit-filled without a full accounting of the evidence. Again, the ethical dimension of the Christian life must be held to be primary in these considerations” [ibid]. Continue reading →

The Ultimate Evidence – Part 1 Reexamining Tongues-Evidence

  By Derek Ouellette | January 19, 2012 - 7:00 am | Holy Spirit 3 Comments

“This writer was baptized with the Holy Spirit at the age of thirteen and spoke in tongues, and I still speak in tongues” – Larry Newman, p.3

I have come across many books over the years written on the topic of Spirit-Baptism, they typically fit in one of four categories. First there are the cessationists who insist that the spiritual gifts (including ‘tongues’) faded from history shortly after they began. Second are the Pentecostal’s who hold that the initial or primary evidence that one has received Spirit-Baptism is that the said individual will speak in tongues. Third are those who believe the spiritual gifts are alive today yet they reject the Pentecostal emphasis on tongues as the initial evidence. And finally there are those who have ‘exited’ from Pentecostalism bitter and hurt from the claims and effects this doctrine has had on them, and they have become hell-bent on informing the world of the ‘evils’ of Pentecostalism in books such as “17 Reasons Why I Left the Tongues Movement”.

Seldom however have I come across a book written by a Pentecostal, one who was “baptized with the Holy Spirit” and “spoke in tongues” and continues to “speak in tongues”, yet who has risen to the challenge of critically examining one of the movements most sacred cows in light of academically critical scriptural hermeneutics. Furthermore, Newman, while at times defending Pentecostalism, has in godly love and humble self-examination admitted the weaknesses within Pentecostalism and its’ doctrines and history, and attempts to map out for the Pentecostal reader a better way, one that aligns itself more faithfully to the scriptures, brings unity to the Body of Christ, and calls for the distinctiveness of Pentecostalism to contribute to – not harbor against – the Church at large. Continue reading →

Poll: Pastors on Creation/Evolution

  By Derek Ouellette | January 16, 2012 - 3:13 pm | Genesis 8 Comments

I sat across the desk of a pastor in the office of his medium-small church several months back. He said to me,

“Derek, one thing I’d like to see about your store are more books that critically think about the creation-evolution debate. Whenever I go in there all I see are books and pamphlets that promote a young six thousand year creation story.”

In all fairness, that perception is not exactly accurate. We do carry books by Karl Gibberson, Francis Collins, Hugh Ross and others. But yes, most of the books in our “apologetics” section promote and defend a six thousand year creation narrative. In fact, the fact that these books are classified under the section of “apologetics” rather than “science” tells quite a bit about the narrative of my store and target market.

I too wish that the store I work in would be broader in it’s approach to these matters. But that’s not the point of this post. I’m more interested in the fact that this Pentecostal pastor, who before entering the ministry specialized in biology, holds to the conviction of evolution. It made me wonder, how many other pastors believe in evolution.

Recently LifeWay published a poll where they asked 1,000 Protestant pastors three questions: 1) do you believe Adam and Eve were literal people, 2) do you believe God used evolution to create people, 3) do you believe the earth is 6,000 years old. Here are the results:

What do you make of these numbers? Is evolution an issue, do you think, that might motivate pastors to leave the ministry?

First Rejection Email

  By Derek Ouellette | January 13, 2012 - 11:32 pm | Personal 2 Comments

In December I saw a press release Scot McKnight posted on his blog announcing Patheos’ new ebook publishing venture. It announced that “Patheos Press is seeking original, thoughtful, and engaging writing about religion.” The press went on to identify precisely what they are looking for:

“Broadly, we are looking for:
•       Irresistibly interesting reported pieces
•       Engaging essays, whether focused on the timely or the timeless
•       Theological and philosophical studies
•       Spiritual guides and devotionals
•       And much more. If you are a good religion writer with clear idea, we’d like to hear from you.”

It finished by stipulating the submission expectations.

Many of you know my desire to publish an ebook. In fact, I have one in the works with a cover already designed and a website already devoted to it. Because I have been so busy the past two months, I skipped over Patheos’ protocol and simply emailed them with my idea, the book title (“The Justification of Tom Wright”), a link to the website and a link to one of my favourite articles related to the subject (“N.T. Wright, R.C. Sproul and the Scarecrow“). I did not anticipate a reply, but figured I had nothing to lose.

So it came as a complete surprise when the managing editor of Patheos Press sent me an email a few weeks later:

Hi Derek,

Thanks much for you submission. Our editorial team will be meeting next in early January and I’ll be in touch shortly thereafter.

Patton

That was a pleasant surprise. While I tried not to get my hopes up, deep down I was really hoping for good news. So my heart skipped a beat when today I hopped on line to check my email and there was his follow-up email. After a moments hesitation I opened it and read:

“Hi Derek,

Thanks again for the submission. While your idea has merit, the team decided to pass on the chance to publish this title. We appreciate your giving us a chance to take a look at it, and wish you all the best.

Regards, Patton.”

This is small potatoes compared to the stories I hear of authors first attempts at getting published and the numerous rejection letters they receive. All in all I’d say that’s not a bad reply for my first attempt at getting something published.  And yet somehow I feel like I just took one to the gut. Still, I believe I’m on the right track and Patton’s interest confirms that for me.

A friend suggested, “Put the letter in a frame and call it Motivation.” I think I’ll do just that.

Evidence of Tongues, A Testimony

  By Derek Ouellette | January 12, 2012 - 10:52 pm | Holy Spirit 6 Comments

I spent my formative Christian years as a member of a small Pentecostal church which belonged to a large Pentecostal denomination called the Church of God out of Cleveland Tennessee. Speaking for this particular denomination there is a fundamental belief or doctrine which teaches that the initial evidence that an individual was baptized in the Holy Spirit is she will begin to speak in an unknown tongue (glossolalia).

I have heard many things come out of this doctrine over the years from Pastors, evangelists, Sunday school teachers, Bible College professors and others which I have struggled immensely with in light of the scriptures and also of practical experience. For example; one particular preacher boldly declared that the way to determine “if someone is a Christian or not is by whether or not they speak in tongues”. His conclusions where deductive in the following way: he’s not excluding those who do not speak in tongues he was simply affirming (what he perceived to be) the reality that if someone spoke in tongues they must be a Christian. My initial reaction to this brassy proclamation was to recall the words of Christ, they shall know we are His by our love [John 13:35], not by our glossolalia; Paul further declares that one who speaks in tongues but has not love is nothing more than a loud gong! [1 Cor 13:1.] Furthermore, since that experience I have met at least one person who no one would deny her Christianity, but when she began to speak in tongues it later manifested itself as demonic. That (once) popular preacher whom they called “fearless” is no doubt wrong.

Another example: Taking a Holy Spirit class in Bible College, my professor declared that by the end of the term everyone would be speaking in tongues (a sure sign of Spirit-Baptism). At the time I wondered how anyone could place such commands and restrictions on the Holy Spirit. As it turned out she was (nearly) right. I say nearly because from the experiences which I am aware of only two (so far as my memory serves me) did not receive “the Spirit” by evidence of “speaking in tongues” and I was one of them. Near the end of the course the second last person was being prayed over to receive it and I was more or less asked not to place my hands on him with the rest of the students because I did not speak in tongues – I silently walked out of the class. Later I was summoned to the presidents office where I was ordered to apologize or lose credit. In other words, a sub-class (a boundary marker James Dunn would say) was imposed upon the student body; those who speak in tongues were considered more powerful in the Spirit and in the Christian walk and those who did not were considered less. This is a very dangerous road to travel down.

Furthermore, it is interesting to point out that it was in that setting – one of those very students – who received a tongue in chapel in Bible College, and who’s tongue later manifested as demonic! I wonder in retrospect if there isn’t such a strong psychological pressure placed on these students, that their desire to speak in tongues and thus to be considered equal to other superior Christians, is so powerful that it actually opens them up to receive demonic influences as opposed to the influence of the Holy Spirit, or an impulse of the flesh. (I’ve been told before, “fake it ’til you make it”. No joke.)

Another example: I watched a young man receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit (as is assumed by the evidence of tongue speaking) but who continued doing, selling, and buying drugs. It was his reputation. Another person accused me of some “hidden sin” because when a group of men prayed over me to receive the Spirit (aka. Speaking in tongues) for nearly three hours nothing happened. But later on that same young man was caught in an internet pornographic addiction! A teacher once declared that any person (even one who is addicted to some sin) who speaks in tongues has more power of the Holy Spirit in a single finger than Billy Graham (who, as far as I know, does not speak in tongues). I began to wonder based on this philosophy why I, who was doing my dandiest to live a godly life, was being denied the Holy Spirit (assuming the evidence of tongues), while drug addicts, porn addicts and other overt sinners were granted the Holy Spirit (again, assuming the evidence of tongues)?

John Hick’s professes to be a Christian, but he denies the deity of Christ, the Atonement, the Incarnation, and refers to God the Father as “the Reality” – in short, Hick’s believes that God can be found in every religion manifested in different ways. One of the factors that have led Hicks to this conclusion (he was at one time a conservative evangelical) and polemic against Christian exclusivity (or soft inclusivity) is based on a lack of morality among Christians who claim to have the Spirit! In Hicks words, “Should not the fruit of the Spirit, which according to Paul is “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self control” (Gal. 5:22-23), be more evident in Christian than in non-Christian lives? Yet it does not seem to me that in fact Christians are on average noticeably morally superior to …” [he lists several other religions, p.41]. Whether or not Hicks argument is relevant to his own discussion (Pinnock and McGrath believe it is not), his question holds certain relevance here: Why would God grant the Holy Spirit baptism to one who was, is, and continues to be unchanged in their sinful addictions, but denies the other Christian in who’s life the Spirit is very much evident according to the standard of Paul in Gal. 5?

Final Example: I want to add one more personal and life altering effect this belief within the Church of God denomination had on me.

I believed I had received a call to the ministry; by that I mean that aside from events and circumstances and ‘coincidences’ and the such that borderline miraculous, I have – ever since my teen years – received different “callings” from different people at different places and different times. In obedience to this “call” I travelled across the country for Bible College, spent time interning at a church on the opposite side of the country, ministered alongside a pastor friend in another city, have preached in various cities from Alberta to Nova Scotia, from North Dakota to Michigan and many places in between. Yet in all of this I have never been ordained and remain a lay reflective Christian. This is because I made a choice to stick with the only denomination I ever knew – and thus my tardiness and hesitance to leave due to a sense of having to ‘start afresh’ as it were. What was the problem? Simply this, an ordained minister must speak in tongues since it is assumed that one who speaks in tongues is baptised in the Spirit, and they do not want their leaders to not have the Spirit. It has been said and judged of me that if I were truly called into the ministry of ordination that God would equip me to do so by empowering me with the Holy Spirit as is evidenced by Speaking in Tongues; however, it is this very notion that is being called into question. The onus is not on God to further ‘prove’ my call with the gift of tongues, the onus is on the Church to align its teachings to what God has already said in his Word, and not place restrictions on the Spirit of God that prevent those who are called from entering into the ministry! So though I believe the entire premise is erroneous, nonetheless this is the predicament I found myself in.

One might ask, Derek what were you thinking spending all those years waiting, hoping, working and serving? The answer for many years was this: I was hoping that enough Pastors and Leaders in the Church of God denomination would one day vote at their national assembly to revisit and rethink this doctrine and its implications; indeed I had even wondered if I would somehow be a contributing catalyst to help the denomination progress in this way. And this brings us to Larry Vern Newman’s book The Ultimate Evidence: Rethinking the Evidence Issues for Spirit-Baptism; and in particular, to its forward which was written by Bruce Arnald Tucker, Ph.D. of the Church of God in Cleveland Tennessee; the very denomination of my roots and the rumblings of my hopes realized!

I have wanted to write on this subject for some time now – and indeed I even tried once or twice before – but I feared that the negative experiences I have had along these lines would color my writings with emotional rhetoric and bitterness. So I decided many times to withdraw from the subject, examine my heart – my motives and intent – and to wait until I sought forgiveness from God for the callousness which built up within me, and also, to forgive those who I feel have allowed this doctrine, which I believe is unbiblical and (evidently) harmful, to be used against me – albeit, unintentionally.

Thanking the Lord for this grace and extending mercy and forgiveness, I now believe that I can safely address this subject and even (as is evident above) share my own testimony of the effects this teaching can have on a believer, and do this out of a clear conscience.

I am very thankful for my experiences within the Pentecostal movement, for my growth and the emphasis of the Holy Spirit that was built in me. Because of these experiences and this emphasis being ingrained in me the Person and work of the Holy Spirit often (though often subtly) influences and can be felt within my theology. This observation is more critical then is usually credited for; often among mainline theologians, the person of the Holy Spirit is seldom (if ever) seriously addressed and given due credit. Yet – and I think, in part anyways, thanks to my Pentecostal background – the Spirit is no less recognized in my theology then God the Father or Jesus the Messiah (as a case in point: I have been contemplating coining the phrase “Covenantal Pneumism” in place of “Covenantal Nomism” as a means to more accurately articulate the Covenant relationship of the New Testament believer in relation to Faith and the Law [Romans 3:31, cf. Gal. 5], giving the Spirit prominence in a theology of the New Covenant!)

Furthermore, as a final note, I have many dear friends in the Church of God – brothers and sisters in the Lord – whom I love and cherish and strenuously wish to avoid offending. Many of them I went to college with, many I grew up with and one in particular – the most influential pastor in my life – who graciously accepted the position of standing next to me as the best man on my wedding day.

When Larry Newman employs the word “rethinking” he is revealing his cards, that he is a post-conservative Christian. When he says “The church faces grave danger exactly at that point where theological constructs are considered to be absolutes. In other words, our theology must always be open to adjustment or reformation when it is exposed to and judged by a fuller and more competent understanding of the Word of God” [p.xiv]; I think we should listen.

In the words of Bruce Tucker Ph.D. of the Church of God, Cleveland TN; “Let us then, welcome this work, examine it thoroughly and thoughtfully, and then respond to it in a manner that honors our witness to Jesus Christ” [p.ix] – amen.

Wrestling with Women in the Church

  By Derek Ouellette | January 9, 2012 - 11:04 pm | Women in the Church 8 Comments

I ended off 2011 on a bit of a sour note here on Covenant of Love. The complementarian/egalitarian debate is one that I have avoided for a long, long time. My approach has generally been that of the ostridge. I have friends who are complementarian, and others who are egalitarian. Me? I stayed far away from the difficult Bible passages and have been passive about women in authority in the Church or teaching or head covering. Frankly, if I accept that a woman cannot have certain roles in the church based on 1 Timothy 2, than I should accept also that my wife ought to wear a head covering in church. Since I don’t expect the latter, why should I accept the first?

I should point out that I have no personal vested interested in this subject. As a member of the Nazarene institution, I should naturally lean toward Wesley’s egalitarianism. But the influences I have had most of my life have been complementarianism. My philosophical approach is post-conservative. I’m open to Open Theism (an advocate even!) and I find the arguments of Conditionalism persuasive (though not 100% convincing). I’ve come to reject Dispensationalism despite my upbringing and now embrace Amillennialism with the whole package of Covenant Theology. And all of that is just scratching the surface of how my views have changed over the years. So I can’t be accused fairly of digging my heals into complementarian sand out of stubborn bias. Indeed the basic tenant of a “post-conservative” approach to the Christian faith is ”the habit of keeping all of our traditions and beliefs open to revision in light of further biblical insight and study“.

On Facebook I often post articles to garner conversation. I usually don’t take a position on the articles. Rather I seek to learn from my friends, to gather insight to help me think things through. My hope of course is also that we will all learn from each other and from the articles themselves and in doing so, we will grow as a community closer to each other and to Christ.

In early December Scot McKnight released his first ebook, Junia Is Not Alone. I liked it. I think the book puts to rest the question of Junia’s gender. Shortly afterwards a blogger named Alastair Roberts wrote an article in response titled Some Lengthy Thoughts On Women Leadership. The article was good. In fact, even worthy of McKnight himself leaving a comment in response at the bottom of the post. Roberts accepted McKnight’s main thesis, that Junia was a woman. But he took issue with McKnight’s colouring of history, that Junia and other women in the Bible have all been suppressed intentionally (he used the word “conspiracy”) by men. Whether one agrees with Roberts or not, the article deserves (in my opinion) a great deal of respect.

It was in light of this that I made the fumbled attempted to join the discussion. I wrote the article titled Egalitarianism Swallowed Up By Complementarianism. My source book for that article was Margaret Kostenberger’s book, Jesus and the Feminist. While I’ve read many things in books and articles that interact with this subject, Kostenberger’s book is really the only one that I read to deal specifically with this subject (if we don’t count McKnight’s book, The Blue Parakeet).

I know the complementarian position quite well. Questions arise about why Genesis depicts God as creating man first and then woman and why Paul appeals to this Genesis account (transcending culture, so the argument goes) in 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 14. The little bit that I have read by egalitarians seems to indicate (at first glance) an inadequate handling of this complementarian argument. Indeed while reading The Blue Parakeet with great interest (I was looking forward to McKnight pointing the way to an egalitarian reading of 1 Timothy 2!), it was painfully anti-climatic when Scot, in exegeting 1 Timothy 2, ignores Paul’s reference to the garden which is the linch-pin of the discussion for many complementarians. (When I tried to have this discussion with a friend using The Blue Parakeet as my source, he just kept pointing to that key passage which McKnight skipped over.)

But my approach to the Bible has shifted in recent years. “The Bible said it” is no longer an adequate answer for me. I don’t think this represents a lack of faith in the Bible or God, rather it represents an acknowledgment on my part that I don’t have all of the answers. I may not have studied a passage deep enough, or may be looking at it from the wrong angle, or may be asking the wrong questions. I believe God is reasonable. If there is some type of hierarchy in the church, I need a reason for that. To say “well, the Bible says so”, if what the Bible says goes against reason, I don’t buy it. The Bible also says not to get tattoos (Leviticus 19:28). But to enforce an abstinence of tattoos is not enough. I want to know why the Bible says not to get a tattoo. When seeking to answer that question one may quickly discover that the Bible is not telling everyone everywhere never to get tattoos. Rather it is commanding the Israelites not to get a tattoo because they had just been liberated from Egypt where tattoos were marks of ownership and enslavement. They were now free and should not bear those marks. It’s the same with the discussion at hand (or any discussion for that matter). It seems unreasonable, even ridiculous, to say that no woman can teach or have authority over a man in church. Yet the Bible says as much, which begs the question “why”. In answering that question we may discover an answer that steers us away from using those key passages as universally applicable texts.

Or perhaps we can come at it from a different angle, one I think most of my Facebook friends take. We could simply conclude that such a belief is not worthy of the God revealed in Jesus Christ. We could say, for example, that whatever that means it cannot be that. This approach wouldn’t be new to me. Calvinism. I reject it out of hand. I agree with Roger Olson that the image of god that surfaces in Calvinism is more akin to something like the devil. Yet Calvinism has some very (very) strong biblical support, particular in the Old Testament. Free-will theists have wrestled with the biblical revelation of a God who commands genocide and some (such as Greg Boyd or Peter Enns) have been attempting to find a new hermeneutic to avoid the difficulty. Calvinists have it easy. They accept that God commanded it because God commands all things. The Bible says it, they believe it, that settles it. But it doesn’t settle it for the rest of us. In the end I may have to take a similar position for the question of women in leadership as I do with Calvinism. That is, despite some difficult passages, I can’t accept complementarianism.

Some of my friends may be annoyed that I’m even wrestling with this. I should just jump to the chase, wave off the contrary verses, partake in some joyful name-calling, and blissfully yet unreflectively embrace egalitarianism. But that wouldn’t be very “post-conservative” of me would it? I only put the issue of Calvinism to rest when I came to some biblically satisfying tensions pressed against some strong counter-arguments.

So off to wrestle I go. For the first quarter of 2012 I’m going to make an effort to explore this question from the egalitarian perspective and to try and come away with solid biblical, theological and philosophical reasons for their case over-against a complementarian reading. I have started and will continue to work through three books: 1) Women in the Church: Reclaiming the Ideal by Carroll Osburn, 2) How I Changed My Mind About Women In Leadership: Compelling Stories from Prominent Evangelicals and 3) Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy.

The State of Affairs:

The current state of the discussion is not healthy. Not productive. Not Christ-like.

“Prejudices on two extremes have resulted in heated discussions of women, particularly in churches. Diverse views are held with almost fanatical zeal. The mere mention of the topic evokes deep-seated feelings and emotions all across the spectrum of thought. Many turn to the Bible, but with different presuppositions, agendas, and traditional arguments. On both extremes, the complex matter of women in the church has become a matter of belief upon which fellowship hinges. For others, it is a matter of opinion to be researched and discussed. Unfortunately, if one seeks middle ground on this issue, one should be prepared to dive for cover, as shots will be fired from both directions. No more volatile topic exists in the church today… The topic of women in the church is not solely a religious issue; it is rooted deeply in the culture in which we live.

“I fear that the way we are now addressing the matter can only lead to extremism, chaos, and hardening of attitudes. If we are to investigate the matter afresh, we must find a more productive approach.” ~Carroll Osburn, Women in the Church p.1-2 (Carroll is an egalitarian)

Wherever I land on this, one thing I want to avoid is an ungodly attitude toward those I disagree with (“Humility applied to conviction does not mean believing things any less; it means treating those who hold contrary beliefs with respect and friendship” ~ John Dickson). In any case I invite you to join along with me and in fact help me out by sharing your perspective.