My time as a youth minister
***This post is a work in progress***
For over two years I worked as a youth minister in an Anglican Church. One thing that I never ceased to be amazed about was the liberalism widely held to among the people within that denomination.
So, what makes a denomination liberal or conservative?
Recently I came across an article about core and non-core essential beliefs of Christians. Few would actually argue with the core beliefs listed, however, I’d point out two points with which I take issue.
1) Among the core beliefs there is no mention of the afterlife. The most common lack these days is in the belief in hell, while virtually everyone with any Christian/quasi-Christian belief thinks they are comfortably on their way to heaven. The Lord Jesus Christ makes it very clear that both places exist.
2) Among the non-core beliefs is the concept of women in ministry. Many these days in favour of women’s ministry turn passages in the Bible completely upside down to say completely the opposite of a plain reading of the text. I do not believe in women in ministry and it is something that will never ever happen in the Church which I and my family attend.
I’ve often thought of this in terms of a Venn diagram.
If those who compromised in the area of women’s ministry were contrasted with those who deny the existence of hell, the overlap would be large, almost identical. The same goes for those who believe in the ordination of homosexuals. Those who believe in ordination of women are on the whole all for it, if not sloppy on the issue. Of course, what I say here can be little better than anecdotal, but there’d be plenty of people who can testify to the experience, whether or not they agree or disagree with the existence of hell or the ordination of women per se.
Why does this all matter? It’s not to say that ordination of women is the worst sin in the world. We are all sinful, and there is no sin more heinous than the other. However, once you allow one group of people into leadership in the Church (which isn’t just the women themselves, but those who appointed them) who say that the Bible simply doesn’t matter and can be disrespected, you allow the thin edge of the wedge for a later generation who will simply turn the Church into a total circus.
A believer can always be assured there will always be Churches that do not compromise on these ‘peripheral’ issues and preserve a Church where God is truly glorified for future generations, should the Lord tarry. Certainly, if I ever choose to work in ministry at a Church again, I will be making sure that they include some of the issues increasingly seen as ‘peripheral’ among they classify as core beliefs.
Hey James,
you know we agree on a lot of things, brother. And that’s cool.
But I gotta say, I’m not convinced that women should not take leadership positions in the church. (I hope you can understand that double negative.)
When I read Paul’s letters, I see a man writing theology addressed to specific people in specific situations. Which means that some of what he writes we can take to apply to all places everywhere, and some of what he writes is meant to apply to the people to whom it was originally written. Women wearing headcoverings in church to be an obvious example of the latter.
In Paul’s time, women were uneducated. It wasn’t their fault, but they had no formal education. Paul was guarding against heresies and false doctrine from entering the church. Paul himself had great respect for women and supported many women in leadership positions, and evidenced by the repeated listing of many women’s names in his letters. No other religious group at the same time had any provision for women leaders at all: not Judaism, not the Qumran community, and not the Greek mystery cults.
In addition to scripture, I’ve witnessed and experienced powerful preaching and pastoral care given by women in leadership. There is no doubt in my mind that God has done marvellous work through women leaders in the church throughout history, and today.
I’d love to hear your views on this in a bit more detail mate.
Cheers buddy.
Paul
PS. (I do believe in hell, though)
Hi bro,
Thanks for being so frank and honest with your viewpoint.
Here’s my attempt at a response.
I won’t go through the biblical passages with you, as we both know them quite well and have already come to our own conclusions as to their meanings.
Rather, let’s think about the concept of “fundamentalism” for a moment.
To the general public, the idea of fundamentalism has gradually changed. It began that there was no fundamentalism, and most of the Western world simply described themselves as Christians.
This gradually changed. The Bible gradually lost its authority in the eyes of the general population because of the works of higher criticism and Darwin. Fundamentalists became those who continued to believe in the infallibility of the Bible and creationism. The creationists in the Scopes trial have often been labelled fundamentalists by their detractors.
Over time, this changed some more. Those within the Church regarded non-drinkers and those who take a strong stand on bioethical or sexual issues as the fundamentalists. There began to actually be a division within the Church itself.
Now (2007), again within the Church, and significantly also outside of it, the idea of fundamentalism has shifted again. Anyone who categorically insists that Jesus was really born of a virgin, performed miracles, resurrected and is coming again is a fundamentalist. They say “How can we be so sure of such things?” and “What do the other religions have to say on these matters?” and “Science has disproved any of this as possible”.
So, given the 2007 definition of fundamentalist, i.e. someone who actually believes the Gospel, should I number myself as one of the fundamentalists or not? I have chosen to do so. I am one of them.
Back to the ordination of women. As a fundamentalist, do I believe in the ordination of women? No. Fundamentalism has a history, a background, and indeed a backbone.
What a beautiful thing the Gospel is in the eyes of a fundamentalist. I pray for more of an unswerving vision of God’s truths.
Thanks for your reply.
I can understand where you’re coming from. I think we have to agree to disagree on this matter.
There are certain Gospel truths on which I will never compromise - the virgin birth, the deity of Jesus, the historicity of the Jesus miracles, predestination, the husband as head of the household, and others. On other matters, I’m prepared to admit that scripture is ambiguous, such as whether the 6 days of creation were a literal six days, or whether women can be ordained or not. I’m not ready to stand up and fight for the ordination of women, nor am I ready to leave a church that appoints a female pastor.
Throughout history there have been many brave women missionaries who have spread the gospel where men have failed to go. In the Muslim world now, female society is unaccessible to men. Were there no women leaders, a huge segment of the world would be cut-off from Christian witness.
I’m no pragmatist. I don’t believe the end justifies the means. But I can see God being glorified in many ways through women of prominence.
(If I’m really honest, though, when I see a female priest in robes ministering at the altar, I feel that something is not quite right. But this feeling doesn’t come from any scriptural basis. Perhaps it’s just my own prejudices.)
Paul