East Shanghai Church

Complicated. Changing. Encouraging.

Those three words encapsulate what Chinese Christians shared with me concerning religious freedom and the state of the Christian church in China.

The third of my three goals for the trip through China was to observe first hand just what is going on in China with religious freedom in general and the Christian movement in particular. For years I have not been able to get a clear and consistent picture. On the one hand I hear horror stories about Christians being persecuted. About the underground church. Secret missionaries. But on the other hand most Chinese people who participate in Church of the Nations never mention any of this. As if being a Christian is not a big deal. Unless one is a member of the Communist Party and/or works for the government or a university. And then one has to keep a low profile. There have been several Chinese people over the last eleven years who have said “I would like to become a Christian but I cannot because of my work and position back home”. A few have been baptized secretly – no non-Christian internationals told or invited.

So which is it? Is it difficult to be a Christian in China or not? And which narrative is more accurate? The “suffering persecuted church” narrative? Or the “people can be Christians and churches can minister openly” narrative?

Let’s start with the raw data. What did I see and do?

I visited three registered churches – Three Self Patriotic Movement churches that cooperate with the Chinese government. (1) Haidian Church in Beijing. (2) A registered church in Yangling. And (3) East Shanghai Church. Oh and I should add (4) a registered church in Nanning.

I also visited or talked at length with (people in) three family churches – churches which are not registered with the Chinese government. (1′) That meets in a large apartment in north Beijing. (2′) That meets in a small apartment in north Beijing. (3′) That meets in rented space at a television studio in Beijing.

1. Haidian Church in Beijing

Haidian Church meets in a huge extremely modern building – almost does not look like a “church” and yes that is a mild criticism. They have several worship services to accommodate 3000+ members. We arrived half way through a Chinese service and tried one of the overflow rooms (where people watch and participate by video feed from the main sanctuary). There was no room but my friend said “this is a pastor from America who has come to visit” and they found us a couple spots. Those who came represented a good cross section of Chinese society but especially young people and university students.

We stayed also for the English language service which is led partly by Chinese and partly by English speaking foreigners. My classmate Chen Yiyi who teaches at Peking University said this is quite unusual and suggests the pastor is both clever and careful. He is able to work with the Chinese government so effectively that Haidian Church is able to do things that normally the government would not permit.  About half the congregation was Chinese (especially young and university people) and the other half foreigners (mostly Americans). The style of worship was definitely “contemporary” and I do not mean emergent – about 10-20 years behind what one normally sees among evangelical churches in the United States. The sermon was given by a Chinese woman who speaks exceptional English. It was excellent and focused on obedience to the commandments of God.

There are several registered churches in Beijing. This sounds great. But do the math. You have several churches each of which includes maybe 3000-7000 people. In a city of 20 million. Clearly the vast majority of Beijing residents do not have ready access to a church that worships and ministers openly. What the Chinese government allows barely scratches the surface of what the Chinese people need.

Every registered church in China also functions as a bookstore. This is where Chinese people can purchase Bibles and other basic Christian literature.

I should note my Chinese friend (who is a professor at a university) did not entirely care for Haidian Church. Her concern is that the church is so large that people can come and go without ever truly being part of the life of this church family. Whereas Church of the Nations is small enough that visitors are always noticed and welcomed. Relationships and friendships form. There is community. But this is not really a comment on registered churches – her concerns would apply to any large church in the United States. I countered that Haidian Church does offer Bible study and discipleship groups – you can choose to become involved and connected.

(1′) House church in north Beijing.

That afternoon a good friend took me to visit a house church in north Beijing. It meets in a rented apartment – with a large living room that functions as a sanctuary and holds maybe 100 people. I met and talked for 2 hours with several members of this church. Two attend a seminary in Hong Kong. One a recent convert. Plus a few others. Some spoke English.

What they tell me is that even this unregistered church can worship and minister openly. Most of the time. For the most part. There are times and circumstances when the Chinese government will give them some difficulty. Such as during the Beijing 2008 Olympic games the government said “this church is too big – you need to divide and meet in smaller groups”. And the church cannot engage in activities that are too public – such as an evangelistic event in a public park.

They were mildly critical of registered churches. Their concerns are that because registered churches must cooperate with the government there are inevitable compromises. Also there is a lack of emphasis on obedience. And accountability is almost non-existent. When I told them about the sermon that morning by Cathy Zhang at Haidian Church they were surprised and somewhat encouraged.

They did express some specific concerns about religious freedom in China. First that the Chinese government appears to be choosing sides – supporting Buddhism and even Islam. But not Christianity even though there are many more Christians than there are Buddhists or Muslims. Second that there are some Chinese who argue that Buddhism should be declared the official religion in China. Why Buddhism? Because Christianity is perceived by some as Western even American. Whereas Buddhism is not. At the time I wondered if these Chinese Christian friends were exaggerating – but later (especially in Shanxi province) I could see what they were talking about.

I asked “what message can I bring back to American Christians for you? what can we do to help you?” they mentioned a few things. Number one was the need for more and better training. There is a lack of good theological and pastoral training in China. They would like to be able to attend strong seminaries in other countries such as the United States. But that takes money. If American Christians want to help Chinese Christians receive strong training we need to work harder at providing good scholarships and financial support. And of course they asked for prayer.

Now my good friend who attended Louisiana State University is not herself a member of this house church. That evening I had dinner with her and her family at their small two bedroom apartment. An American who teaches in China joined us. He has lived in China for several years and grew up in a missionary family that served primarily in Japan. He told me quite plainly “there is no underground church in China. It’s not underground. It’s completely open”. And that there is no need to smuggle Bibles into China. People can buy Bibles openly in China and there are plenty being published to meet the need. The only reason some American pastors talk about smuggling Bibles is because they want to “play at being James Bond”. He himself is fairly active in a Three Self church in Beijing. I have seen shows on television about American Christians visiting truly underground churches – traveling in vans with curtains drawn so no one can see the Westerners within and churches that meet in caves or basements outside of town with people standing guard outside. But this American argued that such shows do not reflect the current situation.

(2) Yangling Church

Very different from the big modern expensive building full of educated people in Beijing. Not far from Northwestern A and F University. But a more humble and simple church building. Wooden benches. The restrooms are basically concrete latrines. Mostly local people and farmers. Many do not have more than a middle school education. The female pastor speaks in a strong local dialect. And yet I enjoyed this worship gathering most of all. It seemed more honest somehow.

My friends in Yangling – a university town about one hour from Xi’an – tell me that the university administration strongly and actively discourages people from participating in this local church. Indeed they warn visiting scholars against having anything to do with Christian churches when they are in the United States. Although I do see some university students and faculty.

The order of worship is interesting. At all three Three Self churches I visit the first half hour is practicing songs. There is little singing during the worship service proper. Although they sing the Apostles’ Creed. They – and I saw this in house churches – read at least one Psalm responsively (men and women alternating). The choir at Yangling Church presented a beautiful and moving rendition of Psalm 23 in song. And apparently we were there on one of two testimony Sundays. No sermon – just people going forward and sharing testimonies. Several people took pictures of videotaped parts of the worship gathering. No one seemed to mind.

(3) East Shanghai Church

East Shanghai Church - exterior

East Shanghai Church is in many ways the closest to a modern-traditional American Protestant church. Beautiful old building in excellent condition. Very well organized with plenty of ushers to help you out. Lists of rules for how to behave during worship – such as no going to the bathroom during the sermon! Traditional wooden pews in good repair. They even provided me a Chinese-English hymnal which is uber cool because now I can sing along with everyone else.

The sermon is good but mind crushingly long. After about 45 minutes I suggest we get going. Apparently she was almost done because the service ends a few minutes after we leave. Super long sermons are quite normal in China.

The friend who took me is also a university professor. She does not normally attend church. She tells me she cannot partly because of her job but mostly because of her husband who is a police officer. He cannot even be seen with me a foreigner. Exactly what kind of police work? Her husband told her “it’s better if you don’t know”. The Shanghai Expo is keeping him extraordinarily busy – maybe three days off in the last few months. My guess is he is the Chinese equivalent of a domestic security agent. Again – it seems that being a Christian is not a problem for ordinary Chinese people. But it is a problem for people in certain positions.

(4) Chonghe Church in Nanning

Apparently one of my friends in Nanning got in touch with a local church – they wanted me to come by and visit. Chonghe Church was crammed into a multi-story building on a narrow street in downtown Nanning. In many ways like a modern Baptist church in America. The sanctuary is relatively small but has a baptistry (beneath the platform – so baptism by immersion), high end sound system, projector and screen, band instruments (such as guitars and drums), and equipment so that people in overflow rooms can watch the live video feed. Part of the building is for their ministry that provides housing for elderly widows who have no children of their own to care for them.

From my journal:

Several staff. Three services with around 2000 members. Li Ping shows us around. Now head to restaurant. There we meet with two friends(?) of X_ who work for the government. Plus three people from Chonghe Church. As well as Z_. Most people do not speak English so most of the conservation revolves around me in Chinese. The two groups of other people have never met each other so it is interesting to see how government workers interact with Chinese Christians. Does not seem to be a problem. Li Ping and Xile Joy are very open and share literature with Peng and Wang.

Toward the end of dinner I ask what the Chinese Christians would like me to pass on to brothers and sisters in America. Please pray. Pray for economic development in Guangxi – one of the less developed provinces in China. For the young people. For men – most Chinese Christians are women. For Christian married couples – that they can be an example to other Chinese. For people in the government.

(2′) Small house church in Beijing

During my last Sunday in China I visit the small house church that meets in my friend’s two bedroom apartment. By small I mean six people. X_ has been studying piano. There are three other people besides her family. We sing several songs. There is prayer and Scripture reading. Her husband L_ alternates preaching with W_ who picks me up and drives me to the apartment. The sermon is a theological exposition of the first sentence of the Apostles’ Creed: I believe in God the Father Almighty maker of heaven and earth. It is one and a half hours long. Ouch. Even if you take into account Chinese and English translation still it would have been nearly an hour. After we finish I am asked to lead in the celebration of Communion. Their one year old son David participates because he has been baptized. Many house churches are strongly interested in Reformed theology. X_ and L_ have been studying Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion in Chinese translation.

(3′) Large family church in Beijing

I have been put in touch with Shaowang Church via a professor at Louisiana State University who keeps in close touch with a young man active in this church. Two years ago they bought property for 10 million yuan. But the real estate company has not allowed them to take possession – even though this costs them a substantial daily fine. Apparently the Chinese government is involved and is blocking this large house church of 1000+ from having their own property because of the significant legal implications.

If you let an unregistered church buy property – you cross a mighty big legal line.

So while the property is on hold they rent space at a government television studio. Which is interesting. My friends X_ and L_ come along because they have always wanted to see Shaowang Church and meet some of its leaders.

From my journal:

There is a gentleman standing outside. Yes? Are we looking for a place to eat? No we are here for the church. Ah then – and he tells us where to go. Apparently if we are not looking for Shaowang church he would have been less helpful.

Shaowang Church meets in the bottom floor of a television studio – with a restaurant right next door in the same building. X_ H_ finds us and we head into the worship space. The space and the service in many ways are familiar. Except for the Chinese language the order and style of worship are similar to independent/evangelical traditional/contemporary. Half of the songs are traditional translated into Chinese. The other half are recognizable “contemporary” – the term is problematic – worship songs also translated into Chinese. There are prayers. The choir sings at least once. The people recite a Psalm together – women and men alternating each verse. Women lead the worship service. There is a central screen and a projector which shows words. There is a time of open/vocal prayer where everyone stands and prays out loud at the same time – have seen this before.

Then the pastor(? later confirmed to be the pastor) comes out. Soft spoken man who appears to speak simply. Apparently this is the sermon. I ask X_ H_ if this is a good time to step out and have a chance to talk. I cannot stay for another two hour service all in Chinese.

X_ H_ is an engaging and outstanding young(?) man who speaks impeccable English with an educated British accent. Turns out he learned primarily by listening to BBC Radio as a child. Whoa. Now a journalist who writes for a well known popular Chinese magazine. The conversation that follows is exceptional. Some of what he shares is revelatory. Some confirms impressions/observations so far about religion and Christianity in China.

Perhaps in a separate document will write up what I can about the conversation. In a nutshell the situation in China is (1) complex (2) changing rapidly – he knows 25 people in his former place of work have become Christians in just the past three months and (3) generally encouraging. The government seems to be saying “we are going to grant you more freedom – but you need to wait a little bit”. He tells me it would have been no problem for me to carry and give out my church business card. Now that is remarkable and not what American pastors in Baton Rouge were telling me. Again – do we exaggerate the situation? So far that has been the case. The church in China is not entirely free. But neither – at least according to what I see and hear – does the situation match some of the horror stories one hears in the United States. Am I missing something?

He says we focus too much on the issue of who is in power rather than specific details and situations.

What can we do? What help does the Chinese church need?

• Prayer

• Training – a shortage of spiritual/theological knowledge among pastors/leaders (he quickly emphasizes that by knowledge he means faithful Christian knowledge)

• Media – by which he means journalists and writers who will (a) produce materials (devotional/spiritual literature, how to live the Christian life, and so on) and (b) promote reading of those materials. This is when Xiaolan expresses her strong interest – she has written articles and her husband is a journalist. One could add publishing/promoting Chinese translations of Christian literature as well. One of the elders is working on Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin. Dude. But is there not already one?

Concluding thoughts

So is there religious freedom in China or not? In a nutshell what I found was a high amount of freedom for Christians – so long as they did not bump into what I call the “ceiling”. The government does become much more restrictive during certain sensitive times. Shaowang Church was meeting in a public park(!) – and streaming their worship services on the internet! – until President Obama came for a visit. Then the government said “you need to get out of here” – hence the television studio.

So what to make of the “horror stories”? What to make of a June 04 2010 article by Baptist Press?

Persecution of Christians in China is still a widespread problem and an ignored topic in the secular media, said Bob Fu, president of ChinaAid, in an interview with Baptist Press.

Fu knows about persecution firsthand. He suffered for his faith in his homeland before he and his wife Heidi fled to the United States in 1997. A leader of the student democracy movement that was squelched by the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989, he became a Christian the same year. In 1996, secret police discovered the Bible school he and Heidi founded and imprisoned both of them. After their release and further persecution, they escaped through Hong Kong.

Fu started ChinaAid (www.chinaaid.org) in 2002 to bring international attention to China’s repression of unregistered churches and their members.

I am unwilling to question what Fu states. Perhaps the situation is different the farther one gets from the big cities. Or in certain less developed provinces. Perhaps what Fu describes is entirely accurate but somewhat out of date. It is difficult to match this article with what I saw and heard during my journey through China.

Generally, faith-based religion defends the goodness of the divine, while religion that is centered on reverence is not afraid to face the idea that the divine may seem evil in human terms. (Paul Woodruff, Reverence, 69)

That parenthetical comment sure got my attention.

I have been thinking a great deal lately about reverence. It started because of the several weeks I spent leading a series of Bible studies on the book of Ecclesiastes. I was most fortunate to study Ecclesiastes at Union Theological Seminary with William Brown who is one of if not the top Ecclesiastes scholars in the nation. The class was genuinely inspiring. Since then I have looked for opportunities to share with others what I am convinced is the surprising good news of Ecclesiastes.

Ecclesiastes challenges conventional wisdom and strongly denies that wisdom money or even righteousness cannot guarantee security in life. Instead it advocates a new(?) set of virtues – rather than moral rules and laws. There are several but as I told the Sunday evening crowd if you remember nothing from this series please remember these two things: joy and reverence. Joy and reverence are the two principle virtues which Ecclesiastes offers.

This post is not about Ecclesiastes or even joy so let me focus on reverence. Several times Ecclesiastes aka Qohelet advocates awe or fear of God (Hebrew yir’at ‘elohi(y)m) in Eccl 3:11-15; 5:7; 7:15-18; 8:10-13; 12:13-14. This is one of those times where translation is an issue. Hebrew y-r-’ normally means fear generally in the sense of be afraid. But Ecclesiastes is not saying be afraid of God so much as something else. Which is why some English translations render y-r-’ in these texts as awe or reverence. Granted even reverence the translation I prefer sounds a little weak compared to what Ecclesiastes seems to have in mind.

Brown explains:

To fear God is to embrace one’s creaturely status as well as acknowledge the impenetrably enduring work of God, who freely extends the blessings of life to finite, ephemeral beings.

The stand in awe before the God of mystery is to position one’s character in relation to God, as opposed to defining correct behavior that presumes the ways of God…

Not only does reverence for God correct the rigid logic and extremes of the individual enterprise, it constitutes the source from which all virtue and right conduct are to flow. Qohelet has given godly reverence its orthodox due without reducing it to primitive terror, on the one hand, or human pretense, on the other. (William Brown, Character in Crisis: A Fresh Approach to Wisdom Literature in the Old Testament, 145, 146)

Or as I said to the Sunday evening crowd:

God is God. And we are not. Respect that. Accept that. Live that.

One can see how the primordial sin in Genesis 3 was to a large extent a failure of reverence in this sense. The first human beings were not content to be like-God but not-God. They wanted to be equal-to-God.

I also asked to what extent reverence in this sense is another word for faith in the sense of radical trust or trusting commitment. Over the last several months I have at times preached Pauline texts where I began to wonder how much Paul has this in mind when he talks about Christ both as object(?) of faith(?) and Christ as exemplar of faith. How much is reverence the relatively unacknowledged theme that holds together his theological reflections?

In other words we think Paul is talking about faith – in what sense? one might ask – when perhaps he is talking about reverence in a robust sense similar to what Ecclesiastes has in mind.

Okay. With me so far? Joy and reverence in Ecclesiastes. Reverence as standing in awe before the God of mystery. And radical trust in and commitment to this God of mystery as perhaps a result? consequence? aspect? of this reverence. Which may be what Paul has in mind by faith.

At this point let me pause and confess that these are raw thoughts. Hypothesis stage. I do not have a theory yet. Still trying to understand the concepts and make the appropriate connections. But bear with me.

Naturally because of this emphasis on reverence in the book of Ecclesiastes – in this case reverence toward the God of mystery whose actions cannot be understood or changed – I wanted to re-read Reverence by Paul Woodruff. One of the most important books I have read in the last ten years. Mind you Woodruff argues strongly that reverence properly understood is not found exclusively in monotheistic religions. Reverence – bare reverence as he puts it – does not require religious belief. The opening chapter provides a good description of what Woodruff has in mind:

Reverence begins in a deep understanding of human limitations; from this grows the capacity to be in awe of whatever we believe lies outside our control – God, truth, justice, nature, even death. That capacity for awe, as it grows, brings with it the capacity for respecting fellow human beings, flaws and all. This in turn fosters the ability to be ashed when we show moral flaws exceeding the normal human allotment. (Reverence,3)

This is not only compatible with the understanding of reverence (yir’a(h)) that we find in Ecclesiastes it is strongly similar. Because Ecclesiastes emphasizes that human beings are finite. God and death – and arguably truth and justice as well – are outside our control. Which is why Ecclesiastes warns against the arrogance and presumption involved when we try to be super-rich super-wise or super-righteous. Although Ecclesiastes makes it clear that the object of our reverence is specifically God.

But in the course of describing bare reverence Woodruff makes some odd comments:

Some religions place a high value on reverence, and some do not. Because reverence is not the same thing as faith, faith-centered religion may place a low value on reverence, exactly as some faith-centered religion places a relatively low value on justice. (66)

Reverence is not faith. And faith-centered religion might be short on reverence. Is Christianity faith-centered? Is Christianity therefore low on reverence? What on earth does Professor Woodruff mean by faith in this context?

Later Woodruff offers the comment I cite at the beginning of this post – the distinction between faith-based religion and reverence-centered religion. But what does he mean? I asked him and he graciously provided this answer:

If I ever revise the book for a second edition, I will change that phrase.

I think what I meant, over ten years back, when I wrote the book, was to pick out religions that defined themselves through a specific verbal creed specifying required beliefs. But many people have pointed out to me that “faith” is the wrong word for that–or, rather, a much richer and better word for a trusting commitment, which is so often deeply reverent.

I am sorry I put this so badly, and I am no longer sure I had a good idea there at all.

(With apologies for quoting him publicly without permission.)

Okay this helps. I should have remembered also where he explained:

Faith is not a virtue; it is either a specific creed or a specific relationship between a believer and God. (64)

Perhaps a better word for what he means is belief. So one distinguishes between belief-centered religion and reverence-centered religion.

So still we might ask which is Christianity?

Let us for the sake of argument hypothesize (1) that Christianity normally understands itself as a faith-based or faith-centered religion. We talk about believing in Jesus. Good readers might object “Now hang on a second there bud. Almost no evangelical Christian really thinks it is as simple as mental assent to certain beliefs. This is faith in the sense of trusting in what God has done for us (by trusting) in Christ”. So I might ask if Christianity normally understands itself as a sort of hybrid belief- and trust-based religion.

So where is reverence?

Think about how Protestant and Catholic Christianity typically does theology as well as prayer worship and mission. How much do these things exhibit reverence? In the sense that Ecclesiastes advocates. Perhaps also/even in the sense Woodruff describes.

Like I said raw half-baked thoughts. Still working on them. But does Woodruff make a valid distinction between belief/faith-centered religion and reverence-centered religion? And whether he does or not to what extent is Christianity based on reverence?

Forgive my lack of humility but I felt good about this one. It is something I have been wanting to say for years. It is so short because we had Communion that day.

“All the Flowers in God’s Swamp”
Revelation 7

Richard M. Wright
Church of the Nations
4th Sunday of Easter
April 25, 2010

Japan is a swamp?

But let us be honest. If Japan is a swamp – as Professor Yanaibara writes in his introduction to Silence by Shusaku Endo – so is China and Korea and India and Kenya Liberia and Ghana England Canada and Mexico so is every nation of the world including the United States.

So is Louisiana.

And this is not a bad thing. Challenging. Difficult sometimes. But not bad. Indeed it is a very beautiful thing which we celebrate and which brings glory to God.

As we see in our Bible reading from the book of Revelation chapter seven.

After this I [John – the writer] looked and there before me is a great multitude that no one can count from every nation tribe people and language standing before the throne [the throne of God] and in front of the Lamb [who is Jesus]. They are wearing white robes and holding palm branches in their hands. And they cry out in a loud voice: ‘Salvation belong to our God who sits on the throne and to the Lamb’.

Where do I start?

My understanding of the Christian faith and of the Christian church and its relationship to the different nations cultures and peoples of the world has been shaped partly by the writings of Shusaku Endo. For one of my classes in graduate school our professor asked us to read the novel Silence and write a short paper about it. It moved me so much that I read two more books by Endo and wrote about them as well.

One of the main issues that Endo writes about is the relationship between the Christian faith and Japanese culture. But what Endo writes is also true for the relationship between the Christian faith and every culture. In the novel Silence the translator Inoue says Japan is a swamp. The flower of the Christian faith cannot grow in this swamp. And if it does grow in this swamp it will change into something different.

Brothers and sisters I say to you that every nation of the world is a swamp. And this is a very beautiful thing.

Our Bible reading presents us with a vision. A vision of the people of God who stand before the throne of God. And this great crowd that the Lamb who is Christ purchased for God with his blood that no one can count comes from every nation every tribe people and language. They are not all the same. Yes they are one people of God who belong to God in and through and because of Christ. But they still have their distinct ethnic cultural linguistic and national identities.

When we become followers of Jesus Christ the Son of God when we become members of the Christian church which is the body of Christ we do not we must not give up who we are. The purpose of Church of the Nations is not to turn everyone into Americans who think and pray and worship and study the Bible only in English. Be Kenyan. Be Ghanaian. Be Japanese. Be Chinese. Be Korean. Be American. When the flower of the Christian faith grows in the swamp(?) of our different languages nations and cultures it will grow and look and smell a little different. And this is exactly what God wants.

Stephen Freeman is a pastor in Tennessee. He writes that when we translate the Bible into different languages sometimes we discover new meanings when words in the original languages (Hebrew and Aramaic and Greek) clothe themselves in the flesh of the new language. The book of John in the beginning was the word the logos the dao and the dao was with God and the dao was God.

Clark Carlton is a professor of philosophy at Tennessee Tech University. He speaks of the need to form local churches that reflect the local people and their culture. So a Christian church in Japan will reflect the local Japanese people and their culture. In China will reflect the local Chinese people and their culture. Indeed we can take this a step further. In Guangzhou will reflect the local Guanghzou citizens and their culture. In Louisiana will reflect the local Louisiana people and their culture. And so on.

When the Russian Orthodox missionary Innocent of Alaska brought the Christian faith to the native peoples of Alaska he did not try to make them Russian. He became fluent in six of their languages. He translated the Bible and other Christian writings so that the native Alaskan peoples could study the Bible pray and worship in their own languages. Build churches and fill them with artwork that reflect their own cultural traditions. He worked hard to encourage and train native Alaskans to become pastors and teachers and other leaders in their own churches.

So not only what Church of the Nations shares with people of different nations languages and cultures. But also what people of different nations languages and cultures share with each other including Americans.

Japan is a swamp. So is every nation of the world. So is Louisiana. So is Church of the Nations. This is a very beautiful thing.

Stories do not come much more beautiful than this.

The New York Times deserves profound gratitude for a magnificent article on Father Moses Berry who is an Orthodox priest in a small rural village in Missouri. Like most Orthodox priests in the United States he is a convert.

When he returned here in 1998, after the death of an uncle who had willed him a 40-acre family farm, he had no intention of starting an Orthodox church in a town already served by 10 Christian churches of various denominations, let alone opening a black history museum.

“We thought my wife would teach, I’d paint appliances and go to school and become an emergency medical technician,” Father Moses said. “I should have known I could never leave the priesthood or forget my history.”

Read the whole thing here. Have a tissue handy.

Why draw attention to this?

It is a beautiful story. This is what salvation looks like. A human being transformed by the grace of God. And how the grace of God touches other human beings through him. Concerning the museum Father Moses says:

“I don’t want other people to run this museum because it’s too delicate, this issue of slavery,” he said. “I’ve tried having other people run this, but they get stuck on, ‘Oh, this is a horrible thing the white man did,’ which causes resentment. I want to explain it and bring them from suffering to freedom.” [emphasis added]

“And bring them from suffering to freedom”.

In one of his “Faith and Philosophy” podcasts Clark Carlton mentions Father Moses and that someone is producing a documentary film about him. Glory to God.

There is another reason I draw attention to this. It is the subject of the podcast in which Clark Carlton mentions Father Moses. And that is the subject of cross-cultural ministry.

For eleven years I have ministered among people who come to the United States from other nations. Right now from China, Korea, Japan, Liberia, Kenya, Cameroon. I have also ministered among people from India, Angola, Nigeria, Malawi, Zambia, Jamaica, Germany, Taiwan. Most are here for a short time but some are here permanently. Most do not have a Christian background but some have been strong Christians most of their lives.

To me one of the most important questions to ask about any Christian tradition from Quaker to Baptist to Reformed to Anglican to Catholic to Orthodox and everything in between is how well does this tradition “work” in other cultures? We can debate what “work” means in this context but I think you get the idea. Can the Christian gospel expressed through the life of the Christian church communicate to and include people of radically different cultural backgrounds?

Could you have a thriving Anglican parish in the mountains of Papua New Guinea? If not why not?

There are several issues involved. Buildings. Vestments. Language. Literacy. Liturgy. Art. And so on.

Could you have a thriving Orthodox parish – complete with icons vestments service books incense and all the rest – comprised of Inuit who spend part of the year out on the ice? Hold that thought for a moment.

Consider University Baptist Church and the second “emerging” worship gathering. In an earlier post I questioned whether it is necessary to change the form and style of worship in order to attract young families with children. A brother in Christ wisely pointed out that yeah sure traditional worship can attract young families with children. Who already have a church background. But the “emerging” worship gathering is intended to attract the unchurched. Okay.

My own small congregation must deal with this question also. We want to attract and include people from all nations and languages and cultures. Africans often end up attending one of the larger more “charismatic” churches in Baton Rouge. Presumably because they prefer a different worship style. Over the last eleven years we have had a modest number of Africans, few Europeans, and no South Americans. Is there something “wrong” with our style of worship?

Bring it closer to home. We have predominantly white and predominantly black churches. Yeah we know that is not the way it is supposed to be but hey you know we just have our different styles of worship.

Now hang on a second there pardner.

There is a congregation in Illinois that is one third African-American one third Asian and one third everybody else. Heard the pastor speak at the Association of Americans Ministering among Internationals conference in Boston 2005(?). They do it.

There are a few predominantly African-American Anglican churches in the Diocese of Louisiana. The staff of this congregation attended a funeral mass at a predominantly African-American Catholic church a few years ago.

During a mission experience up in Lake Providence met a missionary couple who serve in South Dakota. They told me how once a month all the “ethnic” churches come together for a joint worship gathering. And each month a different church leads.

There are plenty of ethnically and culturally diverse churches. Those on the more “charismatic” free church end of the spectrum. Those on the more “liturgical” end of the spectrum. The common notion that certain ethnic or cultural groups only respond to certain ways of doing church does not hold up.

Ginormous case in point.

Innocent of Alaska.

Surely there was no way one could possibly transplant Orthodox Christianity among the people of the Aleutian islands. How could they possibly respond to and embrace an expression of the Christian faith that reflects so different a culture?

But they did. Innocent worked tirelessly to learn their languages and dialects and to translate the Scriptures and liturgy for them. He found ways to communicate the Christian faith in their cultural forms. He did not try to turn the Aleutian peoples into Russians. Many of them became Christians without losing their cultural identity.

Innocent of Alaska is one of the greatest missiological role models.

Joshua Villines is a pastor as well as a PhD candidate at Vanderbilt University in liturgics and homiletics. He lives with his family in Decatur just outside Atlanta. Thanks be to God I know him personally and have had to joy of visiting him and his family a few times when in the area.

He views are an interesting combination of theologically “conservative” and politically “progressive”. I know those are slippery terms but you get the idea. Trinity and incarnation and resurrection and Apostles’ Creed and so on on the one hand. Abortion rights universal health care full inclusion of gay and lesbian persons in the life and leadership of the Christian church and so on on the other. Great guy.

I was impressed by his recent essay published at religion dispatches on the topic “What do ‘the Christians’ believe?”

Unfortunately, even if we were to turn the clock all the way back to first-century Jerusalem we find, as Acts 15 reminds us, that even the Apostles who knew Jesus personally were divided on how Christians should behave. This diversity of opinion continued into the fourth century, when the leaders of the Church gathered together to clarify what Christians actually believed.

Those meetings ultimately produced three documents that remain the only consensus writings on Christian identity. Two of them—the Apostles’ Creed, and the Nicene Creed—provided the theological logic that guided the selection of the writings for the third: the Bible. It is worth noting that, in a time of profound Christian diversity, leaders from Christian communities from around the known world did not include a single social, ethical, or moral issue in either creed. In addition, they were comfortable including in the canon of Scripture writings that offered a wide variety of ethical perspectives. When the early Christians got together and described the consensus of their beliefs, they did not talk about social issues.

So what, then, does it mean to be a Christian? In the hopes of standing in the tradition of the early Church, and limiting myself to where there is actual Christian consensus, my own answer follows the logic of the Apostle’s Creed.

Read the whole thing if you have a few minutes.

Oh sure one might quibble with a few points here or there. But I would rather focus on the strong positive value of his essay. It is also very well written. I say that as someone who for a year taught writing to first year undergraduate students as part of my graduate program.

Our excellent minister of music and senior adults asked me to begin our Maundy Thursday worship gathering last night with an “overview of the story of salvation”. The idea being to set the events of Holy Week in the context of the entire Bible.

This is how I wanted to begin:

Said Frodo, “That’s the way of a real tale. Take any one that you’re fond of. You may know, or guess, what kind of a tale it is, happy-ending or sad-ending, but the people in it don’t know. And you don’t want them to”.

[Sam replied:] “No sir, of course not.Beren now, he never thought he was going to get that Silmaril from the Iron Crown in Thangorodrim, and yet he did, and that was a worse place and a blacker danger than ours. But that’s a long tale, of course, and goes on past the happiness and into grief and beyond it – and the Silmaril went on and came to Earendil. And why, sir, I never thought of that before! We’ve got – you’ve got some of the light of it in that star-glass that the Lady gave you! Why, to think of it, we’re in the same tale still! It’s going on. Don’t the great tales never end?” [emphasis added] (J. R. R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, “The Stairs of Cirith Ungol”)

But this is what I said:

Holy Week. Jesus enters Jerusalem. The Passover meal. The trial. The crucifixion. The cross. Death. The tomb.

Holy Week is part of a larger story. Not a small part it is the most important part but a part nonetheless of the story of creation. The story of God and his relationship with the world that he made.

That in the beginning God created human beings in his image for a great purpose. To live in close relationship with God with each other and with the world that God made. In Church of the Nations we often say God created us to manage the world with God and for God. But the first human beings disobeyed God and fell into sin. The close communion they enjoyed with God with the world with each other all fell apart and became broken. And since then we have seen the results of this falling apart. Sin suffering evil brokenness and death.

But God did not give up. God is good and loves humankind. The story of the Bible is the story of God bringing this broken world and broken human beings back into relationship with himself. And when the time was right God the Father sends his only Son Jesus Christ who becomes a human being. Shares our humanity. Experiences everything we experience but does not sin. Is obedient to God his Father to the point of death when he offers himself upon the cross in order to bring us back into new and healed relationship with God.

Through Jesus Christ we can be what God created us to be. Through Jesus Christ we have communion with God. And with one another.

Everything my friend Chris Brady writes is intelligent and well worth reading. But the spiritual amplifier gets turned up to eleven by his current post “Why do Christians seem to need a body?”

Chris aka Dean Brady focuses on the crucifixion. Appropriate and as he notes providential given that we are about to begin Holy Week.

One of the lections for this Sunday which is Palm-Passion Sunday is Philippians 2:5a-11. The famous “Christ hymn”.

Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death– even death on a cross! 9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (New International Version)

There are two resources I use most frequently when preparing a sermon. The Interpretation series and the New Interpreter’s Commentary. Fred Craddock does his usual fine job in discussing this text. But Morna Hooker breaks the bat and wins the World Series in the bottom of the 9th with a home run that flies right over the Green Monster.

Oh wait. She teaches at Cambridge. Um – wins the World Cup with a hat trick. Yeah.

Biblical exegesis and commentary do not come much better than this. Christians seem to need a body because of the crucifixion. Morna Hooker shows that we need a body also because of the incarnation. Philippians 2:5-11 interestingly enough hold incarnation and crucifixion together.

All three passages [Romans 8:14-17, Galatians 4:4-7, Philippians 2:5-11] describe what we may term “incarnation,” and in all three, the result of Christ’s becoming man is that human beings are made what he eternally is. (“Philippians”, New Interpreter’s Commentary, 504)

Chris in his post is responding to Stephen Mason in Psychology Today. Mason like many people including some Christians makes the mistake of thinking that Christianity is about the teachings of Jesus. In which case one can get rid of Jesus and still have the teachings. Christianity is not about the teachings of Jesus. It is about Jesus. The teachings of Jesus only have meaning and importance in light of who Jesus is and what Jesus does.

Perhaps will post the sermon if I do not ruin it first.

There are buckets of brilliance in how Morna Hooker unpacks Philippians 2:5-11. Her kung fu is righteous. One thing I especially appreciate is how she explains what has always troubled me about this text. Why does Paul speak of the form of God or human likeness or the appearance of a man? I thought Christ was God and became truly human. Hooker shows that Paul is comparing and contrasting Christ and Adam. The language of Philippians 2 echoes the language of Genesis 1-2.

There are some translation issues here as well. Both the New International and the New Revised Standard translations (which I use most frequently in my teaching preaching and disciplines) miss the mark in a few places thereby obscuring what Paul is trying to say. Hooker offers the following:

Show among yourselves the attitude that arises from the fact that you are in Christ.
Who being in the form of God
Did not consider as something-to-be-exploited
Equality with God
But made himself nothing
Taking the form of a slave!
Having become in human likeness
And being found in human appearance
He humbled himself
Becoming obedient to death
Even death on a cross!
Therefore God has highly exalted him
And given to him the name
That is above all names
That at the name of Jesus
Every knee should bow
In heaven and on earth and under the earth
And every tongue confess
That Jesus Christ is Lord
To the glory of God the Father! (506-510)

The thing about extremely intelligent and well educated internationals who are studying the Christian faith for the first time is that they ask questions that American Christians do not normally ask. Either because we have asked and answered them long ago. Or we avoid them because we have yet to find a satisfactory answer.

Jesus teaches us to forgive others. So why does God not forgive human beings unless we believe in Jesus? And why could God not forgive unless his son died on the cross? And yet God expects us to forgive others without such conditions.

Jesus teaches us to turn the other cheek and love our enemies. President Bush is supposed to be a Christian. So why did America go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Do not misunderstand me. I am not saying there are no satisfactory answers to these questions. Just that they sometimes ask questions that one does not hear from Americans who have grown up going to church. This Sunday they hit me with a good one. We were discussing the Psalms. A short study on different types of Psalm. Wisdom. Lament. Thanksgiving. And praise. For the last type looking at Psalm 146. How often we think “God must be on the side of those who prosper and must be angry with those who suffer”. And yet Psalm 146 clearly proclaims that God cares especially for the oppressed the hungry the imprisoned the blind the fallen the foreigner the widows and the orphans. We might think God must have been punishing the people of Haiti because they “made a deal with the devil”. And yet Psalm 146 invites us to see how God cares about them.

And how does God care for all these different kinds of people who are in need or are suffering? Does he make food *poof* appear out of thin air? Or does he help them through us? I do believe in miracles. That God can and does *poof* provide what people need. But I also believe strongly that we are junior partners with God. That we participate in his ongoing mission to heal and to forgive and to save.

And then someone asked:

Yes but why did God not prevent the earthquake in the first place?

I did not have a good immediate answer for that. Perhaps I should have. Yes there is Genesis 1-3 and the story of the Fall or more precisely the Falling Apart. We can talk about the brokenness of creation and how that goes back to when human beings first turned against God. Paul Achtemeier argues persuasively that the book of Romans is not primarily about the doctrine of salvation by grace which we receive by faith. It is really about the story of God and his relationship with a world in rebellion against him. And it is in that context as part of that story that yes indeed Paul the apostle brings up salvation by grace received by faith.

But somehow that does not seem to answer adequately the question my Chinese friends ask. Or does it?

We talk about how God saves. But these people from other nations who frankly are the best in their home countries ask why God saves but does not prevent in the first place.

In The Silmarillion by J. R. R. Tolkien why does Eru Ilavatar allow the drama to continue?

Been reading Christian Theology: An Introduction by Alister McGrath. In the chapter on “The Modern Period” McGrath surveys and summarizes a grocery list of “major theological movements” during the “Modern” period.

Romanticism, Marxism, Liberal Protestantism, Modernism (found this one hard to understand), Neo-Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Feminism, Postmodernism, Liberation Theology, Black Theology, Postliberalism, Evangelicalism, Pentecostal and charismatic, and theologies of the developing world.

What I did not expect was to resonate strongly with how McGrath describes one of these movements. Care to guess which one?

Postliberalism.

Oh yeah. Time to order a custom made t-shirt.

Postliberalism rejects both the traditional Enlightenment appeal to a “universal rationality” and the liberal assumption of an immediate religious experience common to all humanity. (119)

Not entirely sure about that part. But hang in there.

Arguing that all thought and experience is historically and socially mediated, postliberalism bases its theological program upon a return to religion traditions, whose values are inwardly appropriated. Postliberalism is thus anti-foundational… communitarian… historicist.

It gets better.

Postliberalism reintroduces a strong emphasis on the particularity of the Christian faith, in reaction against the strongly homogenizing tendencies of liberalism, in its abortive attempt to make theory (that all religions are saying the same thing) and observation (that the religions are difference) coincide.

McGrath mentions several theologians – apparently I should have gone to Yale – including George Lindbeck who “develops  what he terms a ‘cultural-linguistic’ approach which embodies the leading features of postliberalism” (119).

Where the summary of postliberalism gets downright scary (in a good way – I hope) is:

Theology is grounded on the intrabiblical paradigm, which it is obliged to describe and apply as best it can. To affirm that theology has a regulatory authority is not to imply that it can regulate Scripture, but to acknowledge that a distinctive pattern of regulation already exists within the biblical material, which theology is to uncover and articulate.

This seems to be a bold challenge to the claims of postmodernism and its intellectual cousins.

I do not mean to imply I agree with all of the above. Only that of the various approaches McGrath describes this is the one where I thought “yeah – that is more or less how I look at Christian theology at this stage of my life”. The goal is not to seize upon an “identity”. But to be encouraged that I am not entirely alone – including in my stubborn resistance to liberal Protestantism (which bears strong resemblance to the “emergent” church movement although I could be wrong – that movement claims to be postmodern). Also my theology has become much more “orthodox” – a deep concern for the traditions and teachings of the Christian church throughout the centuries. That is why I would qualify the point about “intrabiblical” interpretation. Surely how the church interprets Scripture is already part of this “pattern” which theology would uncover and articulate?

I could get in serious trouble for this.

Let me begin by reminding people that:

• I married my campus minister (and she hates that I keep saying that – sounds like she was some sort of stalker or predator who seduced one of her students when in fact I chased her okay?)
• Who received her seminary degree years before I did
• Who has preached for me on numerous occasions
• I attended a seminary affiliated with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship
• Where some of my teachers were women
• About half of my classmates were women
• I received one of those “Leadership Scholarships” – so must have been at least somewhat acceptable ideologically to the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship
• I serve at a church that contributes to the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship
• I serve with women ministers

But I am increasingly uncomfortable with how fellow moderate Baptist Christians articulate and practice their convictions concerning “women in ministry”. In a nutshell when did “women in ministry” become a central dogma of the Christian faith?

One must immediately and carefully distinguish “women in ministry” from “ordination of women” from “women as pastors-or-priests”. Of course it is precisely such distinctions which fellow moderate Baptist Christians do not appear to accept. Fair enough. But I will so distinguish nonetheless.

One can speak of “women in ministry” without necessarily agreeing with “ordination of women” or “women as pastors-or-priests”. “Ministry” simply means service (here in the context of the life and work of the Christian church). My wife was a campus minister - but is not ordained and has never served as a pastor (or priest – if we were part of a different Christian tradition). She ministered to college students. She has also served as a minister with children and youth. She is functionally one of the ministers with children for Church of the Nations. “Women in ministry” can take a nearly endless variety of forms. Teaching. Preaching. Visiting. Counseling. Organizing. And so on. It is true that some Christians will argue that not every form of “service within the church” is appropriate for women (typically preaching because of its association with the pastoral office?).

One can even speak of “ordination of women” without necessarily agreeing with “women as pastors-or-priests”. This is where both critics and supporters of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 statement (from the Southern Baptist Convention) have gotten off track. Critics failed to appreciate the careful and limited statement against women as senior pastors. So theoretically one can have women in ministry along with ordained women along even with women as associate pastors and so on. Just not as (senior or sole) pastor of a congregation.

However this has been lost even on supporters of the statement. Since the ratification (adoption?) of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 statement several churches have been kicked out of associations simply because they had women who were ordained (sometimes on ministerial staff and sometimes not even that). And the North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention stopped endorsing or supporting women chaplains. It was intellectual laziness and/or disingenuity for defenders of the statement to argue “we are not against women in ministry – just women as senior pastors” and then on the other hand to target Baptist congregations that had women who were not senior pastors.

My own private beef with “ordination of women” is that it is unclear to me exactly what “ordination” means in the Baptist tradition. We are so ardently anti-sacramentalist in our theology. Everything is a symbol or a memorial. None of our rituals actually does anything in terms of changing reality – right? As far as I can tell ordination in the Baptist tradition means almost nothing more than a change in your tax status. So it is difficult to argue for or against “ordination of women” until we are clear about just what ordination is and what it does theologically and ontologically.

But in the meantime theoretically one can ordain women in the Baptist church without those women serving as (senior or sole) pastors.

Now – back to “women in ministry” as central dogma.

Several years ago David Currie came to speak at University Baptist Church. I remember well when he said the reason many Texas Baptists were unhappy with the direction of the Southern Baptist Convention was “look – we might be fundamentalist but only if we want to” (something along those lines) and “Texas Baptist churches might not have a woman as pastor – but we can if we want to”. The issue then was freedom. A congregation that supported the Cooperated Baptist Fellowship might not have a woman pastor. Might not want a woman pastor. But will not try to stop other Baptist congregations from ordaining women or calling a woman as pastor.

There was a point – when exactly? – when that changed. When the issue was no longer “you can be against women as pastors so long as you do not try to tell others what they cannot do”. But “you must be actively in favor of women as pastors or you are not welcome in this organization”. What once was optional became mandatory.

Some will argue that this is a mistaken impression of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. It may well be. But can we at least agree that while this impression might be technically mistaken it functionally is correct? And so the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship goes out of its way to hold up women in ministry and women as preachers and women as pastors. Please note I am not saying this is wrong.

One sees this explicitly in my own setting.

Let me share an anecdote. A church planter with the North American Mission Board needed some office space. For some bizarre reason he came to us. There were the usual normal and reasonable concerns from the deacons. But I remember one deacon in particular arguing strongly against this. Because this guy represents the Southern Baptist Convention. Which does not support “women in ministry”. Which is against our values and beliefs. And if we let him have some office space we are guilty by association (my words not hers – but that was the gist of her argument).

What struck me is that the issue of women in ministry was her number one and central argument. It was the hill on which this deacon was prepared to die. If these people do not agree with us on women in ministry then we cannot associate with them or give them any material help whatsoever. That is a pretty strong line to take. We can associate with Jewish people and Muslims and Buddhists and Hindus and Unitarians and work with them on joint projects and have them come and speak to our congregation. But Southern Baptists who do not agree with us on women in ministry – that is going too far.

And now the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship of Louisiana is pushing the “women in ministry” vector pretty hard. Speakers. Scholarships. The themes of our gatherings. It is all about being missional (where “missional” means what we do is vastly more important than what we profess or teach theologically) and “women in ministry”. These have become the twin poles or central dogmas of moderate Baptists.

Recently former president Jimmy Carter penned a rather strong statement about the role and status of women in the Christian church. It was published as an editorial in the British newspaper The Guardian. The former president does make some good points but they are difficult to extract from the shadow of this singularly weak paragraph:

This view that women are somehow inferior to men is not restricted to one religion or belief. It is widespread. Women are prevented from playing a full and equal role in many faiths.

This is the central error in a nutshell. If women are prevented from playing a “full and equal role” then it must be because they are viewed as “somehow inferior”. Many people accept that. Many people I know and respect and with whom I serve accept that.

(I note in passing this paragraph as well:

At the same time, I am also familiar with vivid descriptions in the same scriptures in which women are revered as pre-eminent leaders. During the years of the early Christian church women served as deacons, priests, bishops, apostles, teachers and prophets. It wasn’t until the fourth century that dominant Christian leaders, all men, twisted and distorted holy scriptures to perpetuate their ascendant positions within the religious hierarchy.

I wonder what an informed and competent scholar of church history would make of that. The second sentence is problematic because while historical evidence supports some of his examples it does not support all. Jimmy Carter is another moderate Baptist who fails to make appropriate distinctions. And can his third sentence – that the current state is the result of some misogynistic conspiracy – truly stand up to examination?)

Let me get myself in trouble with fellow moderate Baptists by stating for the record that I do not accept the argument that “if women are equal in status they must have the same roles as men in the life of the Christian church”. I do not dispute that many may believe women should have a different role because they are “somehow inferior” (however one defines that). But I assert and argue that some may believe women have a different role in the Christian church for reasons that have nothing to do with misogyny. Disagree with them if you like. No problem. But at least understand where they are coming from.

(Also problematic is the way Jimmy Carter seems to equate various forms of “subjugation” and “discrimination”. As if Southern Baptist opposition to women as senior pastors is somehow equivalent to genital mutilation and domestic abuse. Offensive nonsense.)

Robert Parham also chimed in with “Blaming Men is Not Good Theology”. It is not a bad article – merely weak. What struck me as peculiar is “women are partly at fault because they support these religious institutions with their money and energy”:

Imagine what would happen if rank-and-file Baptist women launched a religious disobedience movement in the local church. If they said no more offerings and no more volunteer hours, the preachers with power would have a lightning-strike revelation about the full equality of women.

Again – not bad so much as weak. This is a subtle form of solipsism masquerading as reasoned argument. It all comes down to experience. “Preachers with power” would suddenly change their minds not because we make a strong case for the “full equality of women” on historical biblical and theological grounds. So far as I can tell Parham simply assumes from the outset that he is correct – everything then becomes a matter of compelling others to conform.

It is possible to believe that men and women have differing roles in the Christian church – and not because one is somehow inferior to the other?

Yes.

But to make this argument I might have to depart just a tad from typical Baptist theology.

The exceptional Anglican theologian Eric Mascall in his book Corpus Christi begins with an argument concerning the nature of apostolic ministry. Forgive me for quoting in extensio:

I can only reply that this objection seems to be based upon a totally false notion of the kind of superiority that a bishop has to a priest, or a priest to a layman. … Any respect in which there is in fact superiority is surely totally unobjectionable; it is like the superiority which St. Paul ascribes to the eye over the ear and to the hand over the foot, a superiority which is entirely compatible with mutual need and mutual love. And presumably when we are made perfect in heaven, neither will the clergy pride themselves on their ‘superiority’, nor will the laity envy them for it; so what harm will it do? The blessed are able, in Dr. C. S. Lewis’s phrase, ‘to play great parts without pride and little ones without dejection’. [27]

In short – “superiority” of role does not imply superiority of status or value in the eyes of God. Would the truly humble care if their role in the universe is “inferior”? Which leaves one wondering how much such issues are about pride and envy and false notions of worth.

But Baptists do not believe in a “superiority” of clergy over laity – so why should we care about this argument from Mascall?

Then what about the Trinity?

The Church is not only ecclesia de Christo; she is also ecclesia de Trinitate. Her life and unity are the life and unity of the Holy Trinity. The pattern of her life is the pattern of the life of God, into which she is taken up. And the life of God is not an undifferentiated but a a trinitarian life, in which Father, Son and Spirit, though united, are distinct, and in which sonship, with its two aspects of apostleship and priesthood, is not common to all three Persons but is proper to the Son alone. [33]

The persons of the Holy Trinity are “equal”. But they are persons – and each person has a distinct identity and role within the life of the Trinity.

My wife thinks that is a dangerous argument and she may be right. It implies that just as God the Son is submissive to God the Father so women should be submissive to men within the life of the Christian church. I think that is a weak objection. I think a stronger objection might be “wait a second – so are men analogous to the Son or to the Father? you cannot be the ‘Father’ and the ‘Son’ at the same time can you?”

Correlating sex (male or female) with persons of the Trinity may be a colossal mistake. Perhaps the more relevant consideration is that equality of status does not therefore dictate equality of role. The divine Persons are distinct and with differing roles. So human beings can be equal in value – but as persons be distinct and with differing roles. Did Jesus mind being the Son?

Can all men be ordained pastors or priests? And if we answer “well no – of course not” then are we thereby suggesting some men are somehow inferior to others? This point is frequently lost on the dominant leadership of the Episcopal Church.

One last point – expanding on the Church as the image of the Holy Trinity.

Metropolitan Jonah of the Orthodox Church in America touched on this during his address to the Anglican Church in North America 2009 gathering. He notes (starting around 31:20) that the “blurring of gender may create a larger core of workers” (a common argument for why women should have fully equal roles in the Christian church – and is one I have used the most) “but it destroys authentic personhood, it destroys authentic masculinity, it destroys authentic womanhood”. Here he is not addressing specifically the issue of “women in ministry”.

Later he does (starting around 49:00). He asserts that the new Anglican province must resolve the issue of “the ordination of women”.

I believe in women’s ministry. I believe that women have a critical role to play in the life of the Church. But I do not believe it’s in the presbyterate or the episcopate [as priests or as bishops]. Forgive me if this offends you. But this is the universal experience and vision and opinion and position of the Greek Orthodox World the Roman Catholic world and the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox churches.

This is a very important issue. And the issue is not so much about ordination – that’s the negative side of it.  The positive side – how can we come together to creatively find the right context for women’s ministry in the Church which is so critical?

Please do not think that there is any misogyny here. Not a bit.

So what am I saying? That I have changed my mind? That I am against women in ministry? or ordaining women? or women as pastors (or priests)?

No.

What I am saying is it appears some moderate Baptists are making “women in ministry” as one of their central dogmas. That it is an understandable but serious mistake to equate “women do not have the same role as some men” with “they are somehow inferior”. That they fail to understand adequately and fairly why some traditions distinguish the role of women from that of some men in the Christian church – even if still they disagree!