The Rock Conference - How Big, How Many, How Much

I’ve been reflecting on whether The Rock Conference hit the mark earlier this month, as we focused on the theme: Building commitment to biblical success in the local church. In building that commitment, we also wanted to take a chisel to the miserable tyranny of how big, how many and how much. The conference was, uh, a Success. We achieved our mission to Edify, Protect, Encourage and Support pastors and church leaders.

No need to say how many were at the conference. (There were plenty; more than expected.) And no need to say how much money we lost on the event. (We lost plenty, but no more than expected.) Kent Hughes was riveting and remarkably humble in his teaching from the Scriptures and from his 41 years in pastoral ministry.

One pastor—Mike Thorburn of Bayside Community Church in San Jose, Calif.— took me aside during the conference and stuck me with many observations that I wanted to remember. Problem was that I remembered the gist of what he said but not the exact specifics. So I called him. We talked, and then he sent me his comments in writing. They get at the core of things. I’ve pasted Mike’s comments below:

We live in a performance-based culture. What you do for me is more important at times than why you do it or the character with which you do it.

This is true for many modern ministry models. If a person is getting results, is talented or fulfills a perceived need we often do not question the person’s motives or character. We’ve created a ministry model that values performance and results over godly character. Sometimes we even overlook obvious character faults due to the person’s success. There are a multitude of examples of how this is evidenced in today's church.

FiveStone Churches is unique in that the core values are character-based. Integrity, authenticity, trust, leadership and service are qualities that are easily found and supported in Scripture and are qualities which work hand-in-hand with the fruit of the Spirit and the Pauline leadership qualities for elders and church leaders.

In fact, Paul's call for leaders to be men who are gentle, faithful and persevering shepherds seems to be a distant memory for what we should be in light of the CEO, rancher, business model for ministry that is taken for granted today. While Paul could write from prison that he had fought the good fight and finished the race, today we read of victory through the breaking of attendance records and the square footage of facilities.

The new paradigm of FiveStone Churches is really a call to return to the biblical foundation of leadership based on character. But this new paradigm creates a tension in many pastors. Today's message to pastors is that church size is the single most important factor in determining success. The second most implied message, and perhaps the most dangerous is that true godliness always results in quantitative growth, not qualitative growth. In conjunction with this is the message that you do spiritual things in order to get visible results. The debate used to be doxological versus soteriological. Our culture now says that you do not seek godliness to glorify God (doxological), you pursue godliness to achieve personal success (egological).

I can't say that numerical success isn't biblical. For example, we have Pentecost as a huge numerical growth because God was working. But for every Pentecost in Scripture there is also an Isaiah (no one listens), a Jeremiah (no one cares) and a Jesus in Capernaum (John 6:67 - everyone leaves).

So at a conference like The Rock Conference where the focus is shifted away from numerical success there is a definite tension. All of the questions we normally ask just don't seem to fit. That's because we've been conditioned to ask questions that have at their core the desire to be successful in the bigger, better, how many, how much realm rather than at the realm of faithfulness and character. Man looks at the outward appearance. God looks at the heart.

Governing Freak-out and the Local Church

How church world intersects with the maneuverings of federal budgets and spending cuts, a.k.a. sequester. 

Several years ago, a church planter and I walked into a school district administrator’s office in the Chicago metropolitan area to suggest that we rent one of the district schools for Sunday worship services. We promised to pay a good rental rate. We promised to pay the rent on time. We wouldn’t break anything but, if we did, we’d be quick to replace whatever it was that we broke. We’d be good citizens.We knew the district was hungry for more cash, so we thought we had a good shot of working out an agreement. But the answer was a quick, firm and non-negotiable No.

Was it because the administrator hated the thought of a church in the district schools? Maybe he doesn’t know that he can’t legally forbid a church from renting the facilities if others rent the facilities. Or maybe he was just having a tough day. 

No, it’s not that, he said. The taxpayers just voted down a property tax increase. We don’t want to add revenue at this time.

He didn’t want to add revenue at this time . . . because taxpayers voted against adding their revenue at this time. I remember thinking it was all so very weird. The district wanted cash. We would have provided a good monthly chunk. But the administrators obviously were planning to punish taxpayers because they did not cooperate with the district’s tax plan. Doesn’t matter if other revenue sources could be found or, for that matter, if spending cuts could be found. Bottom line was that the taxpayers would suffer consequences for their stubbornness. District services would be stripped away as a first resort to cause pain to taxpayers.

I think about that local school administrator when I read the headlines about the consequences of federal budget cuts. The people will suffer consequences, whether the consequences are needed or not. They must feel pain.

So the federal government is facing 5 percent cuts in programs that have increased by an average of more than 17 percent during the Obama presidency. Airline flights will be delayed, children and old people will suffer. Food quality will decline. Prisoners will be set free to terrorize us. Governing via freak-out.

I’ve seen this movie before. Now it’s re-runs over and over and over. We truly are strangers in a strange land. The human heart is desperately sick, as the Lord said in Jeremiah 17:9. Thank the Lord for His word and His church.

Kent Hughes, Success and The Rock Conference

I slipped my carefully crafted certified letter—return receipt requested—into the post office mail slot.

For many days before sending that letter, I consistently expected to reap excellent fruit from my work. But, as I walked away from the post office, I felt sudden despair and dread. I whispered, This is ridiculous. He won’t come. He has no clue who I am. He doesn’t know any of our guys. He won’t even respond. Maybe he’ll respond. But he’ll say, ‘No.’

When Kent Hughes called me a couple of weeks later, I didn’t take the call. I didn’t recognize the number. But then I decided I should figure out who was calling. Good thing, because it was Kent Hughes trying to say Yes to my invitation. So much for the power of suddenly negative thinking.

This is very good. Kent Hughes is spending the day with us at The Rock Conference to talk about success in ministry. And we’ll worship in music, we’ll pray, we’ll discuss how to apply the Scriptures in leading the local church.

The Rock Conference will define Success in the local church the way the Lord defines it, as described in the Scriptures. We want to build a commitment to embrace the Lord’s definition of success.

That’s Monday, April 15, at Calvary Bible Church, just west of Detroit in Ypsilanti, Mich. It’s for pastors and church leaders.

Edify. Protect. Encourage. Support. I’m expecting a most excellent, fruitful day.

A Divorced, Remarried Man Leading the Church?

The questions were raised to our Elders Council several weeks ago: Is a man who’s been divorced, or divorced and remarried, disqualified from the role of pastor, elder or deacon? Is he automatically out? Does he fail the one-woman-man test of 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6? May he serve the church just as any other man?

We believe the Scriptures say that No, he is not necessarily disqualified and No, he does not necessarily fail the one-woman-man test and Yes, he may be qualified to serve the church just as any other man.

I wanted to share our view. It's shown below. Our view also has been incorporated into our Principles of Doctrine, Governance and Practice.

*            *            *            *

The Bible teaches that marriage is designed by the Lord to form a lifelong, singular relationship between one man and one woman. Divorce is a human invention that was instituted because of the hardness of heart of both men and women. Divorce destroys the Lord’s vision for marriage and its benefits; divorce damages families; divorce destroys marriage’s illustration of the gospel (Ephesians 5:23); divorce weakens the fabric of society. Despite these consequences, the Lord also offers abundant grace and mercy to overwhelm the sin of men and women.

Although marriage is designed by the Lord to be a permanent earthly bond between one man and one woman, the Scriptures also teach that marriage is dissolvable. Death of one of the marital partners, for example, dissolves the marriage and frees the living spouse to remarry (Romans 7:1-3; 1 Corinthians 7: 39).

The Scriptures also describe two exceptions that allow for divorce:

1.    God allows a husband or wife to divorce and remarry if his or her mate has committed adultery. Divorce in that case is not required, but would be allowed. The marriage could be reconciled despite sexual unfaithfulness. However, reconciliation is not always possible (Matthew 19:3-12). 

2.    If a believer is married to an unbeliever, and the unbeliever divorces (abandons the marriage) rather than continues in the marriage, the marriage would be dissolved. The believer would be free to remarry (1 Corinthians 7:12-15).

In both exceptions, the innocent spouse has not committed adultery. Also, the innocent spouse either has not sinned in any way or has not sinned in a way that should destroy the marriage.

Despite the simple specifics of these two exceptions, it is clear that sinful men and women sometimes manipulate and posture in order to feign innocence and seemingly fulfill one or both of these exceptions in order to impersonate the innocent party. A spouse, for example, may use sinful means to drive the other toward an adulterous affair. Or a spouse may make it impossible to live peaceably at home, and thereby eventually drive the marital partner to abandon the marriage. Nonetheless, the Scriptures affirm the exceptions cited. Responsible pastors and elders must prayerfully, thoughtfully discern the specifics in each circumstance and reach justifiable and right conclusions.
 
The Bible requires a pastor-elder to be a one-woman man, but a man divorced and remarried under one of the two exceptions has not committed adultery. It is permissible for a man divorced and remarried under either of these two exceptions to serve the Lord in the local church as a pastor or elder or deacon.

In addition, a man who has been divorced outside of the two exceptions is not automatically disqualified from serving as a pastor, elder or deacon. If, for example, the man in question has remarried and has remained faithful to his wife, he could qualify as a pastor, elder or deacon despite a history that included an unbiblical divorce. If the man is repentant for his role in the original marriage's dissolution, has demonstrated repentance and is faithful to his wife, he could fulfill the qualification from Titus 1:6 as a one-woman man.

If a man is disqualified from church leadership because he was divorced or in other ways sinful before his salvation to Christ, then the Apostle Paul also should have been disqualified from spiritual leadership in the local church. Paul said of himself in 1 Timothy 1:12-14: I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has given me strength, that he considered me faithful, appointing me to his service. Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief. The grace of our Lord was poured out on me abundantly, along with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. Before his conversion, Paul certainly was neither peaceable nor self-controlled.

What about an existing elder whose marriage is falling apart to the point of divorce? The elders obviously must hear from both the elder and the elder’s wife and perhaps others regarding the details and specifics of the circumstances that have done such severe damage to the marriage. It is likely that the elder in question would be required to step down at least for a season in order to free him and his wife to save the marriage. The elders hold the responsibility and the authority to discern what is best for the church and, secondarily, what is best for the marriage and for the man serving in the elder role. The church elders’ first responsibility to both the man and woman is to help them preserve their marriage.

Each man who desires the elder role must be willing to have his life examined for qualification. The qualification of being a one-woman man may seem the sole focus in the issue of marriage, divorce and re-marriage. However, perhaps equally important is a discussion connected to the requirement that a man be a good manager of his own household (1 Timothy 3:4). As Paul notes in 1 Timothy 3:5, . . . if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? A man who has been divorced may need to consider whether his leadership of his family in the home contributed to the divorce. Did his sin drive his wife or his children away from relationship? Rather than presume the answer to be Yes, the answer must be discerned through thoughtful and compassionate examination of the man’s life and conduct.

A Desirable Discovery on a Honda Gold Wing

I had an unusual encounter along the Indiana Toll Road near South Bend late yesterday afternoon. Some might call it serendipity—a desirable discovery made by accident. But, truly, it was the good Lord handing me an unexpected blessing.

Joyce and I were driving home from Pennsylvania, feeling a little sad after dropping off our daughter Rachel at college. We pulled into a rest stop along the toll road and I spotted a man and a woman in motorcycle gear standing next to a parked Honda Gold Wing. I had to talk with them.

They were astounding. They had a powerful but controlled energy that was exciting and marked by good humor. He’s 77 years old. She’s 73. They love the Lord and boldly told me so. I was stunned when they said their nephew teaches Bible at the college Rachel attends. Rachel’s taken two of his classes, and he’s one of her favorite professors. They were traveling from their home in Pennsylvania to Carson City, Nevada. They had already traveled about 375 miles that day. An excellent ride, but the rain in Pennsylvania and Ohio wasn’t much fun. About 2,000 miles to go to Carson City. They soon would stop for the night.

He asked me, Have you been to the Creation Museum in Cincinnati? He didn’t pause for an answer, but continued, You gotta go! They’re building a replica of Noah’s Ark. It’ll be done in 2014. We’re planning to go after it’s done.

What delightful people. At 77 and 73, they were full of adventure and excitement and on their way to Carson City on a Honda Gold Wing, with plans for Cincinnati in 2014. And, in all of that, they found a way to encourage me as I was missing my daughter.

Twenty minutes after our 15-minute encounter, as Joyce and I were heading down the toll road at about 70 miles per hour, the couple on the Gold Wing zoomed past us going about 75. I waved out of my window as they passed, but they were busy talking and didn’t notice. They pulled off the toll road at the next exit.

Who could have put together my encounter with this couple? Serendipity? Not. When I parked at the rest stop in Indiana, I just was curious about the gray-haired motorcyclists and their Honda Gold Wing. I was handed gifts of encouragement, humor, energy, vision and love for the Lord. I hope I’m like them if I get to be 77. Or, maybe even today.

Do Not Despise the Day of Small Things

Lucas O’Neill is a smart man pastoring a small church. And so, in his mind, leading the church to join a network was no conundrum. He knew that Christian Fellowship Church would be best served by joining a network of like-minded churches. He just needed to figure out which one. I’m glad he and the elders landed with us at FiveStone Churches.

Lucas gets it. He wants the church to grow stronger in every way, but he does not measure success with the dominant stick of how many and how large.

We have good people in our church, he said. But it’s tough to gain strength when you’re alone as a pastor and as a church. I like the strengthening aspect of FiveStone Churches and the commitment to protect and build the local church. It’s refreshing for our people and for me to be part of something more than ourselves.

As Lucas and I grew to know one another during the past several months, we resonated in the conviction that the local church must be independent at its core, yet committed to the wisdom of uniting with those who share convictions of doctrine, governance and practice. We agreed that FiveStone Churches would be hands-on in the relationship to help the local church grow stronger. We would Edify, Protect, Encourage and Support. But, at the same time, the local church is not to be controlled by forces and interests from outside the local congregation. Whatever influence I have in the local church, for example, is based in the relationship I have with the pastors and elders and other leaders. And so comes one of our core convictions: We influence by relationship, not mandate.

As I said at the opening, Lucas is a smart man. In addition to his pastoring role, he teaches homiletics as an adjunct professor at Moody Bible Institute in Chicago and is working on a doctor of ministry degree in preaching at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in Boston. He pastors a church small in number but large in other ways. I suspect that Christian Fellowship Church will grow larger in many ways.

Click here to read a FiveStone Churches news article about the church and Lucas.

And, one more thing, A small church can be a great church.

Great People, Nameless People

Reading about great saints tends to put things into right perspective, as it did for me recently. A few ministry frustrations had thrown me into a funk. So, I spent a chunk of time reading missionary history.

Some missionaries are famous, some notorious, but others are completely obscure. The obscure saints caught my mind. They’re long-gone, nameless men and women, boys and girls, who suffered terribly in giving everything for Christ. They’re disciples who no one knows, and they’re on no one’s roster of great Christians. Even so, I’m guessing that the Lord lists them among the greatest of his people. In the Lord’s economy, of course, fame is not greatness, and success is not measured in human terms. The obscure ones may even be the greatest of all.

A few of many examples, cited from A History of Christian Missions:

•    converts to Christ in India who, as result of their faith, were kidnapped and disappeared forever or were completely rejected by their families;

•    a missionary physician and his wife, serving Christ in India, who saw each of their five children die from disease;

•    African boys who, after they received Christ, rejected the sexual advances of their tribal chief. Three of the boys were roasted over a slow fire. Thirty-two others were gathered together and burned in one immense pyre;

•    in Madagascar, a queen ordered her soldiers to seize every Christian, bind them hand and foot, dig a pit on the spot and pour boiling water on them and bury them. At least 200 Christians were killed this way, 14 were hurled over a cliff, four were burned alive. One witness recorded his observations of their deaths: They prayed as long as they had life. They died, but softly, gently. Indeed, astonished were all who beheld the burning of them.

•    missionaries who made their way to strange lands to share Christ’s gospel and quickly, or after a short season, were killed and eaten by the indigenous people. (That’s what the book says. They were killed and eaten.)

I am freed from my wimpy little funk. Nothing to complain about here. Just thankful for the Lord's patience, grace and mercy.

From Acts: Principles for Strong Church

I just finished an intensive reading of The Acts of the Apostles. It freshly strikes me that, in the first chapter, Jesus gave the apostles no specific details of their new assignment. He promised them power through the Holy Spirit and charged them to be His witnesses in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and all of the world (Acts 1:8). How exactly were they to take His word elsewhere?

Eight overarching principles in the book of Acts form the foundation for a church that honors Christ and takes ground to make disciples in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and the world.

Principle of right proclamation: The Lord honors the proclamation of His word. At least 24 notations in Acts clearly state that the Lord blessed the proclamation of Jesus as the Christ and the bold proclamation of His word. The capstone of this pattern occurs in the last verse of the book, that is, Acts 28:31, in which Paul is described as proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness and without hindrance. Also note: Acts 4:29-31; 5:42; 8:4-5; 11:20-21; 12:24; 18:28; 19:8; 19:10; 19:17; 19:20; 20:20-21.

Principle of trustworthy leadership: Leaders must demonstrate a life worthy of trust. This principle is demonstrated primarily in the example of the disciples bringing their possessions to the leaders. Acts 4:34-37 details the first such scene. The apostles testify to the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Lord extends His grace upon the people, and the people respond by generously giving. The local church gave generously to the people who were in need, but they gave to those people through the apostles. Acts 4:35 says they brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles’ feet. This pattern is replicated in Acts 11:29-30, when the disciples entrusted Barnabas and Paul to deliver financial relief to brothers and sisters in Judea. In both of these examples, the disciples had confidence in the integrity of the leaders. That confidence led them to trust the leaders to do what was right and good with the wealth given to their care. But the leaders bore the burden of ensuring that the money was properly distributed. If the leaders had failed, they would have lost the trust of the people.

Principle of generous giving: The leaders had the responsibility to properly handle the Lord’s money, but the people had the joyful opportunity to give generously as a blessing to others. Acts 4:34-37; Acts 11:29-30; Acts 20:35.

Principle of proper polity: The local church is to be led by leaders qualified to shepherd the Lord’s people. These core leaders include elders and deacons. In Acts 6:1-7, the apostles delegated authority to the congregation to choose from among themselves men who would serve as deacons to meet the basic needs of  the people. In Acts 14:23, Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for every church in every church. In Acts 20:17-35, Paul defends his ministry and charges the elders of the church at Ephesus to diligently defend and shepherd the Lord’s church.

Principle of proper purpose: The gospel of Christ is to turn people to the light of Christ in order to receive forgiveness for their sins and to be counted among those sanctified by faith in Christ. Acts 26:18.

Principle of clear and urgent teaching: The Lord wants preachers and teachers to clearly, thoughtfully and urgently teach the Scriptures. In many references in the book of Acts, Paul, Peter, Stephen, Phillip, Apollos, Barnabas and Silas demonstrate the value the Lord places in competent teaching of His word to His people and to unbelievers.

Principle of clear commitment to doctrinal purity: The Lord values right doctrine. Right doctrine clearly describes the required response to the identity of Jesus Christ. Paul warns the Ephesian elders in Acts 20:30-35 that some will speak twisted things and draw people away from the truth of Christ. Paul admonishes them to remember the words of the Lord Jesus.

Principle of competency in selfless serving: The Lord wants leaders to be more than dispensers of truth. They also must demonstrate the Scriptures’ command to serve others. The Lord’s sensitivity to the care of others’ needs, for example, led to the appointment of deacons in Acts 6:1-7. Selfless caring for others is key throughout Acts.

Christ’s judgment of a church’s success may or may not square with a specific culture’s evaluation of success. In the evangelical Christian culture of the U.S., for example, success is commonly defined as numerically large, musically contemporary, financially wealthy, and featuring rock-star leaders. The Lord’s review of the seven churches in Revelation 2 and 3 should encourage those who cannot boast about any of those.

Christ evaluates success by several factors:

• faithfulness to Christ;
• faithful service to others;
• protecting the church;
• endurance in suffering;
• fighting false doctrine;
• embracing the Lord’s reproof and discipline.

He nowhere marks success by numbers, worship music, financial wealth and rock-star leaders. That should be an encouraging reminder to those without big numbers, financial wealth, amazing worship music or rock-star status.

The 12-Tool Toolbox

The Scriptures command that an effective spiritual leader—a worker in the Lord’s church—must skillfully use various tools in shepherding the Lord's people. That’s in keeping with the Lord’s exhortation in 2 Timothy 2:15: Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

There’s also no need to fear people when doing what the Lord wants done. If you’re about to fail to deliver because you’re afraid, then remember the Lord’s words in Jeremiah 1:17. My paraphrase: You’d better get ready and say what’s needed. If you’re terrified by people, then I’ll cause you to be terrified by people even more. So, if you let people-fear paralyze you, then you might have to reap—directly from the Lord’s hand—a multiplied fear of people.

Equally paralyzing can be a fear of failure. It's the fear of failing to rightly apply the Scriptures, to know what to say, when to say it and how to say it. Yikes, we don’t want any of that. Even so, rightly applying the word of truth is the high goal of the worker's best efforts.

With that admonition fresh in mind, here's a look into the 12-tool toolbox:

• Reprove, i.e. to present evidence that reveals wrong; to expose, prove, show fault, correct, convict. (Proverbs 12:1; 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Timothy 4:2; Hebrews 12:5; Revelation 3:19.)

• Rebuke, i.e. a type of reproof; a rebuke involves a stern command to stop; to censure, strongly tell, strike at. (Proverbs 27:5; Proverbs 28:23; Ecclesiastes 7:5; Matthew 19:13; Luke 17:3; 2 Timothy 4:2; Titus 1:9; Titus 2:11-15) Peter’s astounding rebuke of Jesus in Matthew 16:22 was personal, strong and scolding. Note that, in response, Jesus turned immediately to face Peter and delivered a withering rebuke: Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man. (Jesus was not nice, but that’s a different issue.)

• Refute, i.e. to prove wrong by argument or evidence; to show to be false or erroneous. (Job 33:5; Luke 21:15; Acts 18:28; Titus 1:9 in NASB and NIV)

• Exhort, i.e. to strongly urge to take an action; to make an appeal. (1 Corinthians 1:10; 1 Thessalonians 2:10-12; 1 Thessalonians 4:1; 2 Timothy 4:2; Titus 1:9; Hebrews 12:5; 1 Peter 5:1)

• Admonish, i.e. to instruct with a strong warning so the hearer comprehends, understands. (Psalm 81:8; Romans 15:14; Acts 20:31; Acts 27:9-10; Colossians 3:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:14; 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15; Romans 15:14)

• Confront, i.e. to challenge or resist; to stand as an adversary. (2 Chronicles 26:18; Titus 1:10-11; Galatians 2:11; Galatians 6:1-2)

• Encourage, i.e. to inspire with courage or hope. (1 Samuel 23:16; Philippians 2:1-2; Romans 15:4; 1 Corinthians 14:3; 1 Thessalonians 2:10-12; 1 Thessalonians 5:14; Hebrews 10:24)

• Edify, i.e. to build and strengthen; instruction that leads to strength. (Romans 14:19; Romans 15:4; 1 Corinthians 14:3; 1 Corinthians 14:12; Titus 1:9)

• Console, i.e. to ease grief or pain. (1 Corinthians 14:3; 2 Corinthians 2:5-11; Philippians 2:1-9; Hebrews 12:12-13)

• Comfort, i.e. to reassure those who are in distress, anxiety or need. (2 Corinthians 7:4-13; 1 Thessalonians 4:16-18; Philemon 7)

• Implore, i.e. to testify as a witness regarding result, consequence; to strongly urge; to beg attention to an issue. (Luke 16:28; Romans 12:1; Ephesians 4:1; 1 Thessalonians 2:10-12)

• Remind, i.e. to bring to mind something that was learned before, but perhaps forgotten or diminished over time; to bring to mind in order to stir to action. (Romans 15:15; 2 Timothy 1:6; Titus 3:1-2; 2 Peter 1:12-15)

No-stick Criticism and Smooching Women

Two discussion points from recent elder training regarding elder qualifications described in Titus 1:6: What does it mean to be ‘above reproach’? and I’m married, so obviously I’m the ‘husband of one wife.’

A man who is above reproach is one who, when a criticism or accusation is sent his way, has a life of evidence that ensures it does not stick. The criticism is inconsistent with the evidence of the man’s life. I ran into this just recently. Someone spread the word that I’m a lover of money. Not sure what spawned the accusation but, on the face of it, it was flat-out false. The men to whom I’m accountable at FiveStone Churches know my lifestyle and my salary and my behavior in ministry. And my wife handles money and possessions with extraordinary biblical fidelity and wisdom. So the accusation and criticism do not stick, and that's the end of it. I am above reproach in my handling of money and possessions. (And it better stay that way.)

Even though the accusation obviously was false, it still was thrown my way. Does the biblical standard require that accusations never are thrown at an elder? Of course not. In fact, accusations are certain to be thrown at an elder as he does the work of shepherding. Sometimes the accusations have some truth, but sometimes they come from people who simply don't like the counsel they've received or don't like the way it was delivered. Does the biblical standard require perfection, so that an elder never sins? Of course not. But the tenor of the elder’s life must be that he handles his sin biblically and quickly and continues to grow in godliness.

It’s common for men to pass by the qualification of husband of one wife and say, Well, at least I’ve got that one covered. The Lord’s standard of marital fidelity extends beyond the simple fact of being married only to one woman (Matthew 5:27-28, Ephesians 5:25-33). A one woman man not only remains married to the woman but also fights the good fight to be a one woman man in his mind and in his real-life relationships with other women. So, it would be a qualification problem if a married man has a reputation of speaking flirtatiously with women or has a habit of grabbing or nuzzling or smooching women. So a man's been married to the same woman for years, but he dishonors his wife—and displeases the Lord—with his words or by letting his eyes wander or by grabbing or nuzzling or smooching women. And, even if a man doesn’t overtly act out, women often have an innate ability to sense this problem in a man. They can smell it. A few of them may even like receiving that attention from a church leader. That’s just a world of trouble waiting to bust.

So what’s a man to do? Fight to be a true one woman man who not only legally is married to one woman, but seeks to honor the marriage relationship in all arenas with all women. Men would be wise to ponder the ways of Jesus with women. Look at how Jesus related to women. Think about the total trust and love with which women responded to him. That would make all the difference.

The Fakers at Your Church

How many, how many, how many . . . drawing numbers into church worship services is a big ticket these days. The church growth picture includes all kinds of facets. And here’s another: Coaching to help unbelievers successfully participate in church worship services. This from the Chicago Tribune in an article titled, The Faker: A heavenly deception.

The writer likens pastors to restaurant maitre d’s and bartenders: They see a lot going on under the metaphorical table but they remain as quiet as a church mouse—at least in public. He says pastors give a free pass to Fakers in the local church. Fakers attend not because they want to, but because they have to out of necessity or politeness or who knows why. Fakers can sit in the local church without even a small challenge from the church's shepherds to get serious about doing business with God. That’s quite an indictment against today’s church leaders, isn’t it?

The Faker says several moves will successfully pull off the deception:

• Dress not to impress but to blend in. (This is dubious wisdom, because the writer urges women to guard their hem lines and says men should wear a dark business suits or navy blazers and khaki pants. Really. Not many churches these days have such a code of attire. Blending in actually might require simply falling out of bed and showing up at church.)

• Be prepared to wear headgear if needed. Ladies should bring a scarf just in case. Just don’t wear a baseball cap. (I don’t know about this. Can’t recall when I last saw a woman in church wearing a headscarf, or a baseball cap. But a baseball cap on a man seems stylish in some churches.)

• Always take a program. Scan it to get an idea of the agenda and what’s expected of you. Locate hymnals or prayer books you may need. (Yes, this is good Fakery advice.)

• Bribe the kids. Offer food or money to get the kiddos to sit still and not reveal that you are Fakers. (Ah yes, very good. Teach your children well.)

• Get close to the action, but not too close. Don’t sit at the back. Move toward the front so you look more like a regular attender. But don’t go too far to the front because you need to watch others and follow what they do. (The Faker erroneously assumes people who sit at the back have something to hide.)

• Sit, stand, kneel when everyone else does. If hitting your knees offends you, then cheat. Slide your rear end to the end of the pew, lean your knees toward the floor and then lean your forearms against the pew in front of you. (This is nothing new. I learned this trick as a boy. I just watched the men of the church and got the hang of it pretty quickly.)

• Accept new things that are done with respect and, usually, in silence. If something is restricted to members of that specific denomination, don’t take part unless you’re eligible to do so. (Must be talking about communion here, but I don't get why the Faker would be sensitive to this. A devoted Faker should consistently demonstrate the sincerity of his fakery, and should have no angst about ethics.)

• Stay to the very end. Then, slip out the side door. If you must stop, resist saying that you’ll be back next week unless you mean it. (Again, I don’t know why a Faker should be sensitive to this. After all, a Faker’s a Faker, and all is fair game for the Faker's shtick.)

A lot of The Faker's advice is neatly cunning. But it doesn’t work well in churches that have a plurality of good shepherds who know the flock, reach out in meaningful ways to newcomers and lead well from the pulpit and the platform. Still, it's disturbing that Fakers can so easily sit comfortably in many local churches.

Saplings into Mighty Oaks, Mighty Maples

I planted a tree in my yard that looks something like this drawing of a sapling.

It reminds me of the public presentation of a new church. It shoots out strong and looks pretty good, like it's been around for awhile. It's already sprouted some green leaves, but they're not yet fully extended. The sapling looks good, but it also seems fragile. A bad storm might knock it down. An ugly bug attack could kill it from the inside. But there it stands, in the ground, supported, protected and nurtured by the caretaker. It's started to grow strong and tall.

It might grow slowly, like an oak, or quickly, like a maple. Doesn't matter. Either way, it's still doing what's it's supposed to do in the ground in which it's planted and in accordance with the way the Lord has designed it. I really like that.

Church planting is risky work. The plant is vulnerable to any number of attacks. As somebody said: What if your church plant fails?

Here's a good answer: What better thing is there to fail at? We need to be like King David when he wanted to build the temple. The Lord didn't let him build it, but He commended David for his heart for the Lord's glory. (1 Kings 8:18).

High risk is the nature of things that are worthwhile and make a difference in the Lord's kingdom. We won't despise the day of small things (Zechariah 4:10), and we won't be swayed by discouragement, fear, frustrations or opposition (Ezra 4:4-6).

The Curious Case of a Sunday School Teacher

Here’s a case that came my way recently:

Benjamin serves in his church as a Sunday School teacher of middle school children. He is popular with the children and with the youth pastor. Benjamin has been at the church for several years, he’s been baptized at the church and is a member. He recently confided to the church leadership that he is a homosexual. Benjamin is aware of the biblical teaching on sexual activity and says he wants to live a holy life. He is committed to celibacy but is certain that he cannot change his sexual orientation. He asked the leadership for prayer and support as he pursues what he says is God’s call for him to be monastic. Meanwhile, George, a prominent elder in the church, says that he plans to leave the church unless Benjamin is removed from his teaching role. The situation has become known throughout the church. What are the church’s elders and other leaders to do?

I was surprised that almost all of the comments from the leaders were geared toward defending Benjamin, how to help Benjamin so he can continue in his role as a teacher and what should be done to rebuke elder George for his ultimatum.

Here’s a representation of the comments:

• What constitutes sin? Is desire a sin or is only acting on desire sinful?

• It’s obvious that elder George told the church about Benjamin’s situation. The elders need to rebuke George for gossiping about this.

• The church is a family, and not all family members are the same. We need to be tolerant and patient with one another.

• A substantial percentage of homosexuals cannot change, and we shouldn’t punish them for not being able to change.

• Why pick on homosexuality? I used to serve as a pastor at a church where quite a few board members had big problems . . . there were adulteries and divorces and re-marriages . . . all in the same church . . . and some of these people were on the board!

• Why should being gay be an issue? You don’t see people talking to others and saying, ‘By the way, I’m heterosexual.’

All of that makes powerful fodder for discussion. But begging for the asking are several questions that lead to important principles in church leadership:

• What are the most important concerns in the case? Is Benjamin's teaching role primary? Is George's role as an elder primary? No. The most important concern is the health and protection of the church. Whatever honors the Lord is best for the church. Even righteous, God-honoring decisions can lead to difficult consequences. The preferences and position of any individual are subservient to the health and protection of the church.

• If teaching is a role of esteem and influence in the church—and it is—then do we want Benjamin to teach the boys and girls in our church? I was surprised that no one stood on the conviction that an openly homosexual person—celibate or not—should not have a teaching role in the church. This springs not from a desire to persecute homosexuals, but from the conviction that homosexuality is a grave offense against the Lord’s natural order and is sinful according to the Scriptures. Benjamin should be cared for in the church and valued as one made in God's image, but giving Benjamin teaching opportunities is a different matter entirely.

• Is it right to single out homosexual desire for special rebuke? No, of course not. But people shouldn't be expected to respond normally to someone who confidently and publicly announces temptation toward sexual sin, such as, I desire to have sex with all of the blonde women in the church. I’m not acting on my desire because I want to be holy. Now, let me teach your children in Sunday School. Even the least discerning follower of Christ will suspect that that person has some serious problems, and that those problems aren't only about sexual desire. Yet, somehow, in this case, the church leaders gave Benjamin a free pass while they hammered George.

• Is leading in the local church a right for everyone who wants it or is it a privilege for those who are not perfect, but are qualified according to biblical standards? It’s strange that the leaders’ comments in this case were totally dominated by sensitive thoughts toward preserving Benjamin and by angry thoughts toward rebuking George. But why rebuke George? For the ultimatum he delivered? Sure, that’s a rebuke that seems warranted. We don’t know how the congregation became aware of Benjamin's situation, so George cannot be blamed for spreading the information through the church. But should George be rebuked for his energy to remove Benjamin from his teaching role? I don’t think so. Why? Because his conviction that Benjamin should not teach is easily defensible. George may have responded harshly out of anger, or maybe he’s just mean and small. Or maybe he’s afraid that the elders and other leaders will not do what’s required.

Among all the leaders who discussed this case, about 99 percent of their energy was directed against elder George and was protective toward teacher Benjamin. It struck me that many church leaders seem indoctrinated to tolerance and geared solely toward compassion so that they have no sharp edge of protection for the local church. Are they afraid of being accused of being small or harsh or narrow or phobic? Or are they so lacking in discernment that they don’t even know how far they’ve strayed from balanced strength? They may want to protect the church and many think they’re doing well by being tolerant and broad-minded. But church leadership ultimately is a privilege, and there are some sinful behaviors—and self-assured, public announcements of sinful temptations—that simply cannot be tolerated by those charged with protecting the church. In this case, the leaders’ sharp edge was turned to protect Benjamin and attack George, with no consideration of the church as a whole and the church's children in particular. The considerations needed to cut a path that was broader and deeper. That’s why good eldering is so difficult. Apart from abiding in Christ, who is adequate for these things?

A Highway to Hell, or Just a Different Ethic?

I finally get it. I get why some people think that using the song Highway to Hell in a worship service is OK. I also finally get why some men lie and manipulate to get things done in the churches they lead.

They’re Ethical Consequentialists. Their decisions are rooted in the ends that they’re seeking. So, the ends justify the means. In their minds, using a blasphemous, God-hating song such as Highway to Hell in a Christian worship service is OK if they can convince themselves that the song had a role in bringing some people to salvation in Christ. Someone might try to cite Isaiah’s nakedness in Isaiah 20 or Paul quoting Greek poets in Acts 17 as defenses for using Highway to Hell in worship but, really, is any thoughtful person falling for such a glib and careless abuse of the Scriptures? Using songs like that is more likely tied to a junior high school tweeny sin mentality that gets its jollies by embracing the outrageous and watching other church people get mad.

But, before I go too far on the Highway to Hell theme, haven’t we seen ethical consequentialists at work in other areas of church world?

It’s in the pastor who turned his relationships because of the fear of man. Like the one who said, If that church doesn’t like what I’m doing, they might put a video church close to my church. That would really hurt my church. OK, I get it. You’re afraid of man. To protect your small church, you do nothing to bug the big and powerful church. The end (protect your small church) justifies the means (getting yourself in line because of a sinful, pathetic fear of man).

It’s in the pastor who said: Of course, I know that I’m lying to our people when I tell them that. But you can’t tell them the truth about this. Wow. What causes you so much fear that you lie to the Lord's church? In this case, the good end was keeping the congregation in line so they would continue giving generously. The bad means was lying to get there. Living like that is like living in a carnival funhouse, where mirrors are distorted and you can’t tell the real look and the true shape of things. Church life then becomes a fearful, bizarre and lasting distortion . . . and a grief to our Lord.

That’s completely different from standing on the conviction that the precepts of the Scriptures are rooted in the Lord’s character. Biblical precepts are not rooted in so-called good results. Consequences should not be the root driver of decision-making. Of course, Scriptures teach the importance of wisdom and spiritual intelligence. But, we know that the Lord doles out consequences as He sees fit. The Scriptures are filled with men and women of conviction who acted on principle rather than on pragmatics. It’s in the one who swears to his own hurt in Psalm 15:2-4. The Christ-like person does what he says he will do, even if the fruit of the decision is bitter, even if acting on his principles hurts him. It’s in Daniel 3’s three teenagers—Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego—when they thumbed their collective noses at a king who ordered them to worship his idol. Golly goobers, a fiery furnace is a bad end. Just a little kneeling won’t hurt. The Lord will bless my shrewdness after I do this little act of idol worship. I'm smart to avoid the furnace. Think how pleased He’ll be.

Count on it, there is real fruit in living as an ethical consequentialist in leading the Lord's church. Absolutely certain and no doubt. You compromise your Integrity, Authenticity, Trust, Leadership and Service. And that has eternal consequences. But you did not learn Christ that way. Ephesians 4:20-30.

Miracle Grow in a Seed Church

Planting a church that pops up strong ordinarily takes some time . . . maybe as long as nine months from seed stage to the day it goes public. It usually takes time to build the seed of a solid core group and get everybody ready for ministry. Why? Because the work needs to draw gifted servants and develop strong roots of relationships, leadership, service, doctrine and organization. Those roots help hold the plant in place when hard days come.

On launch day, of course you want people who visit the new church to connect with the Lord. You also want them to say, Wow, these people really know what they’re doing. This looks like a church that’s about two or three years old. That means all things are in order and done well, from the location to signage to genuine friendliness to worship to preaching to child care. Yes, better emphasize child care. It doesn’t matter how good everything else is, if parents worry that their babies and older children aren’t cared for properly, they won’t be coming back.

I figure there’s several reasons for that. It’s true that a planting pastor who parachutes in to a new location has a tough row to hoe. Much also depends on the ground where you're throwing the seed. If there's a few healthy churches in the area, it's probably going to be tougher to grow the church. Perhaps there's maybe one Bible-preaching church in the area where we're planting. Perhaps the people of the area also already know the planting pastor, which makes things easier. But that’s far from enough. The Lord puts together a core of praying people who are gifted, mature and passionate about Christ and his church. They also know how to make connections between vision and action. And whatever they don’t know, they’re teachable to learn what’s needed and then act upon it. That’s miracle grow stuff for the seed of the church.

The Lord has an Opinion

Laid a foundation in this week’s shepherding and sharpening work with the elders of a church in Wisconsin.

___________________________________________________________

Conviction: The Lord has an Opinion.
Seek His mind, seek His heart. He has powerful feelings about His people and the way they’re led. Love and lead the church. Love the Lord in fear and reverence. Do not fear people. Be sure you don’t disdain or despise people, but the work of leading must be done without fear of people. Ecclesiastes 10:4; Jeremiah 12:5-11; Ezekiel 2:7; Ezekiel 3:7-9; 1 Corinthians 3:5-7.

Action Priority: Honor the Lord, no matter what.
1 Samuel 2:3; 1 Samuel 2:30; Malachi 1:6-14; Isaiah 29:13, Isaiah 30:1-2; Colossians 3:23.

___________________________________________________________

Conviction: The Lord’s glory and reputation are core.
2 Samuel 12:10; 2 Samuel 12:14; Isaiah 43:1-7; Isaiah 52:5-6; Ezekiel 36:19-23, 1 Corinthians 10:31.

Action Priority: Take care in your relationship with Him.
Examine yourself to root out presumption, secret indulgences, religiosity, license, legalism, laziness, frenzy, pragmatism, foolishness, worldliness. Psalm 19:12-14; 1 Timothy 4:16.

Action Priority: Your reputation matters. Build it on the reality of your relationship with Him.
Your reputation reflects on Him. It reflects on the Lord’s church. And it reflects on your wife, your children and your other relationships. 1 Chronicles 4:10; Ecclesiastes 10:1; Proverbs 22:1; Ezekiel 3:20.

The Stink of Foolishness

Ecclesiastes 10:1 popped into my head this morning. And I’m really glad it did.

I was reading news articles and commentaries on Jim Tressel’s resignation as head coach of Ohio State University’s football program. Tressel is accused of repeatedly lying to NCAA officials when he said he knew nothing about a couple dozen Ohio State players receiving cash payouts, getting discounts on new cars, selling football memorabilia and getting tattooed by a drug trafficker. Tressel originally was suspended and fined $250,000, but the story has legs. Tressel resigned on Memorial Day.

Tressel’s football accomplishments are superb. But, like Ohio State coach Woody Hayes before him, Tressel may first be remembered for his terrific failure. The Hayes incident—in which Hayes punched an opposing player in a 1978 bowl game—was a rapid-fire moment of foolishness. By 1978, Hayes had been coaching at Ohio State for 27 years and had amassed an immense record of accomplishment. But what's the first thing I think of whenever Woody Hayes is mentioned? Right, it’s the closing minutes of that game. It’s Hayes’ punch to the throat of that Clemson player who intercepted a pass along the Ohio State sideline. The memory of Hayes' accomplishments is dimmed by that foolish moment.

This morning, writers are quoting Shakespeare and a few others for insight into the Tressel story. One writer mocked a Tressel quote out of the book The Winners Manual: For the Game of Life, published in 2008. It seems Tressel wrote that, The reputation of a thousand years may be determined by the conduct of one hour.

Right, it could take an hour, but it also could take a moment, or a couple of days or weeks or months. Decisions made in advance can easily and quickly lead to a moment of crushing destruction. It only takes a couple of bad decisions to reap a big ruin. And it can happen to anyone.

A couple of friends and I used to remind one another that you’re only two or three bad decisions away from taking a sledge-hammer to your life . . . to your relationship with the Lord, to your marriage, to your legacy as a father, to your reputation, to your future in ministry.

I’m really glad that Ecclesiastes 10:1 ran through my mind this morning as I read about Tressel’s sad fall. I take that as an indicator that the Lord’s warnings and the Lord’s ways are close. The Word hidden in the heart. What an immeasurable gift from the gracious Lord. What a great thing to remember on the day after Memorial Day.

When They Should Go

People leave churches for any number of baby or sinful reasons. But there’s a flipside. Sometimes the church's leaders need to quickly get on the same page to correct a person and possibly remove him from the church. Certainly, leaders must patiently work with people in their sin. The universal church is a family, of course, and you can’t really leave your family. So you try to work it out. But, as is true in earthly families, there are times when a son or daughter needs to hear: You can’t live here and behave this way. When you’re ready to change, then we’ll welcome you back. 

It’s really about church discipline. The Lord installed church discipline to keep sin from the church (Ephesians 5:25-27; 2 Corinthians 11:3); cleanse sin in the church (1 Corinthians 5); and restore sinning saints (Galatians 6:1).

What kinds of sin in the church demands immediate action and which can be placed on a slower burn? I don’t claim the below list is exhaustive, but it may serve as a slate for discussion and further thought.

Urgent Now (demands a strong, immediate correction). It’s when someone:

• intentionally twists the Scriptures to hurt the church, as in 2 Peter 3:16-17;

• clings to an obviously sinful relationship, as in 1 Corinthians 5;

• gives money, but then demands a level of authority as payback;

• intentionally disrupts a worship service;

• installs himself as first in importance and abuses others, as in 3 John 9-10;

• obviously flaunts a decision or a warning from the elders;

• obviously abuses people of the church.

Urgent Soon (calls for a more patient correction). It’s when someone:

• teaches a strange doctrine, as in 1 Timothy 1:3-4;

• complains that the preacher preaches from the Bible too much;

• makes a charge against an elder without verification, as in 1 Timothy 5:19;

• teaches others to obey unbiblical requirements, as in 1 Timothy 4:1-5;

• pits one leader against another leader, as in 1 Corinthians 3;

• causes divisions in the church, as in Romans 16:17-18 and Titus 3:10;

• harshly judges others’ freedom, as in Romans 14;

• parades his freedom and leads others to stumble into sin, as in Romans 14;

• participates in a pattern of nasty, destructive criticism;

• picks fights with the pastor or other leaders;

• demands—rather than aspires to—a position of authority and responsibility;

• ridicules those in positions of authority and responsibility.

Teach Them to Build the Church

People leave their churches for any number of reasons. Some of them are childish: I didn’t get my way, she offended me, pastor ignored me, elder asked me to change, ushers too directive, carpet’s the wrong color . . . on and on the list goes.

Such thinking must be challenged. That’s where pastors and elders do some of their best work. One of their core jobs is to challenge the thinking of people who have unbiblical, immature or sinful understandings of the purpose of the church and their role in it. They need to understand that they should strengthen the church to help it honor the Lord by making, baptizing and teaching disciples of Jesus Christ. Pastors and elders need to pass people’s words through the grid of the Scriptures to discern whether the thoughts are biblical or unbiblical or simply immature or sinful. They need to help each person think and act on the purpose of the church and the Lord’s desire for their participation in it. It’s part of the leaders’ job of protecting and nurturing the church.

Many think the church is about them. They think it’s about them being pleased by everything the church offers and taking whatever the church offers. If a person isn’t serving to strengthen the church, then he needs to start doing that or he needs to go to a church where he will do that. In 1 Corinthians 14:12 and Ephesians 4:11-13, Paul urges followers of Christ to excel at building up, or edifying, the church. The Lord doesn’t want his children to be forever babies, i.e. consumers, complainers, users and takers. There is time, of course, for baby believers to learn how to live the Christian life and to eventually serve the church. A believer in Christ needs to learn that the Lord wants us to excel at strengthening the church. That thought is so counter-cultural in many of today’s churches that it sounds stunning. It’s so counter-intuitive that it seems radically strange. Who thinks like this in today’s churches?

I know of an overworked, underpaid and under-appreciated pastor who endures an elder’s snide comments whenever the pastor takes a brief vacation. Maybe we need to cut your pay. Seems you have too much time on your hands. This pastor’s been on the job for seven years. And he’s tolerating an elder who is not excelling at strengthening the church. Sadly, the elder understands his authority and responsibility, but he likes to exercise it by beating down the pastor and making him miserable. What an accomplishment on his spiritual resume’.

Teach your people—elders too if they don’t know it—a radical old concept: Use your spiritual gift to excel at building the church. That would be excellent.

Who Beats on Women?

Somebody told me that Bible-believing Christians oppress women. At the risk of being accused of Islamophobia, let's see who really beats on women. Interpret for yourself the teachings of the Qur’an, (shown below). You already know what the New Testament says about the way Jesus related to women and the New Testament standards for relationships between men and women, husbands and wives, fathers and daughters. Which of them beats on women?

From the Qur’an, the scriptures of Islam:

• One man equals two women as witnesses in a legal matter. Surah 2:282 – And bring to witness two witnesses from among your men. And if there are not two men [available], then a man and two women from those whom you accept as witnesses - so that if one of the women errs, then the other can remind her.

• A wife is for the planting of the husband's seed whenever he wants to sow; a wife is like land prepared to receive seed. Surah 2:223 – Your wives are a place of sowing of seed for you, so come to your place of cultivation however you wish and put forth [righteousness] for yourselves.

• A man is instructed to literally beat his wife into submission. Surah 4:34 – Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them.

• A daughter’s inheritance is far less than a son’s and is not total even if there are no sons. Surah 4:11 – Allah instructs you concerning your children: for the male, what is equal to the share of two females. But if there are [only] daughters, two or more, for them is two thirds of one's estate.

And this from Muslims: Their religious beliefs and practices, written by Andrew Rippin and published in 2005 by Routledge: While men are free to remarry after divorce, women must wait (while being supported by the ex-husband) to see if the woman is pregnant. The male rules the house in all matters. The religion of the male is presumed to be the religion of the household; thus, a Muslim male may marry a Jewish or a Christian woman, but a Muslim female may marry only another Muslim. A man may marry up to four wives at a time, but a woman may marry only one husband.

In Western Muslims and the Future of Islam, published in 2004 by Oxford University Press, Tariq Ramadan acknowledges that Muslim women often are treated poorly. But, he says, Nothing in the message of Islam justifies discrimination against women. (I can't even believe he said that, but there it is on page 139.) Ramadan never touches any of the Qur’an verses detailed above.

Am I Islamophobic? Or maybe Ramadan intentionally left those verses out of the discussion because they run contrary to his delusion that the message of Islam treats women perfectly fine. Ramadan’s spin machine doesn’t matter. He can say what he wants. But the bottom line is that Islam teaches men to treat women poorly. That’s never the way with men who love Jesus Christ enough to follow his teachings and the teachings of his Scriptures.