At CityView Church and the Network in which I’m involved, we hold to a position that is known as the “complementary” view of gender roles—a belief that men are to lead in both church and home…and by “lead”, we don’t mean dominate or abuse, but to lead and love like Jesus (Ephesians 5:22-27).

Male leadership does not imply superiority on the part of the male or inferiority on the part of the female.  On the contrary, the idea of male headship in both church and home is 100% consistent with the understanding of equality of status and dignity given to both men and women in Genesis 1:26-27.

Thus, male headship is not in conflict with the incredible redemption found in the Gospel that prompts Paul to declare that we are “neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28-29).

Now…having said all this, I believe many complementarians do a terrible job of offering a defense for their views.  Thus, I would like to suggest a way to think through how we communicate these important truths to those that might be reasonably skeptical of male headship.

In light of former President Jimmy Carter’s recent article related to this matter and having recently spoken on the subject of men and boys during our Fathers’ Day service at CityView Church, I felt that an essay on this matter would be timely (and hopefully, helpful).

It is my conviction that those who hold to a male-headship view need to think through a defense of their views on three fronts.  First, we need to think through this subject biblically.  What does the Bible say on this matter?  What are the most basic and elemental texts that speak to gender roles?  If you can’t make a scripturally sound defense of the complementary view, it will be difficult to speak intelligently on the matter.  Here’s an example of how I approach this (minus some nuanced points I might make in a more in-depth discussion):

Since the Gospel is God’s graceful response to man’s rebellion and fall, I prefer to go to the earliest, pre-fall teachings on the subject (along with the cross-referenced New Testament passages).  Taking Genesis 1:26-27 along with Paul’s teaching in 1 Timothy 2:11-15, we are given a picture of pre-fall man and woman…completely equal in dignity and worth, yet created with different gender roles.  One must either explain away Paul’s statements OR acknowledge complete consistency in saying men and women enjoy an equality of worth in spite of a division of roles and responsibilities.

Further, the Genesis account also reveals that human beings are representing the image of God in as much as each gender displays his male-ness or female-ness.  We were created both male and female in the image of God in such a way that our gender is crucial to the ongoing display of God’s image.

For either a man or a woman to act in any other way (or reject/deny their gender) would be to subvert our collective image-bearing mandate.  Thus, not only does creation order confirm male headship to be considered consistent with gender equality, but our originally created state intends these differences to be a natural part of the Imago Dei’s display in creation.

While some would argue that the Gospel eliminates all gender-role barriers (usually accompanied by a twisted reading of Galatians 3:28-29), such arguments fail to remember that the Gospel is “putting things to right” in a way that responds to the Fall in Genesis 3.  Since the pre-fall texts indicate gender roles as being in full swing, it would be a strange argument to assert that the Gospel “puts thing to right” by eliminating gender roles.  Besides, it was the perversion of natural roles that were one of the many pieces of the fall (In Genesis 3, God was ignored while the man stood by as the woman was subdued and dominated by creation instead of the exact opposite order as God had established!).

Not only should a complementarian think through these things scripturally, but theologically.  What are the doctrinal implications of not holding to a complementarian position?  What key doctrines will need to be adjusted to make way for the egalitarian view?  If you can’t make a theological defense of male headship, it will be difficult to converse with those that want to think and speak philosophically on the matter.  The following is an example of my preferred way of discussing this:

Since the Trinity is such an important, primary doctrine and its perversion would cause a whole host of theological dominoes to fall, I prefer to converse on the subject of headship and equality as it relates to Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  For instance, the scripture is clear in declaring the Son’s submission to the Father and His will (Father-headship).  Yet it is generally accepted that Father, Son and Spirit are also co-equally God in character and both communicable and incommunicable qualities.

If headship is bad and being “under” one’s leadership is demeaning or makes the submissive one “inferior”, then it follows that Jesus must also be inferior–not co-equal–with God the Father.  The same could be said of the Holy Spirit.  Are egalitarians willing to speak of the Trinity in these terms?

Further, since the Trinity is the model for the Imago Dei (image of God) in man, it also follows that by being made in God’s image–both male and female–part of bearing God’s image will be living out the gender roles He has established.  Why?  Because we are bearing the image of a Trinitarian God that is co-equal in every way while at the same time acting out their different roles!   By embracing male headship in both church and home, we actually affirm our understanding of the Trinity!

Some egalitarians might say that this is all fine and good for the Trintiy because God can hold co-equality and headship of the Father in tension because God is perfect.  However, man’s sinfulness prevents him from doing this in a way that is responsible and consistent with the Trinity and thus, men and women are best to eliminate roles so as to prevent the abuse of male headship.

The problem with such an argument is that one must shrink the Gospel in such a way as to believe that men and women cannot be redeemed and sanctified enough so as to successfully live out male headship without sinning.  Thus, one has traded a “Trinity-problem” for a “Gospel problem”.  And the dominoes keep falling.

A final way in which one must think through matters related to male headship is personally.  How do you live out the tension of co-equal, yet different roles?  How does your behavior and attitude speak to a successfully sanctified out-working of scriptural gender roles?  How does your life fight against the notion that male headship necessitates a low view of women?  If you can’t convey–in speech, attitude and action–a reasonable case for the consistency of male headship with equality of worth and dignity, you will be handicapped in any discussion you might have on this matter.  Here’s an example of how I handle this:

While I’ve tried several approaches, my wife has always been my greatest apologetic on these matters.  Many egalitarians imagine—wrongly—that most complementarians have weak, quiet, barefoot and pregnant wives.  While my wife prefers sock-free feet and HAS been pregnant quite a few times, she hardly fits the descriptions many would imagine.

My wife is a type-A personality that likes to be in charge.  She’s competent and strong-willed.  She intimidates some men (and some women) because she’s beautiful, smart and extremely confident in herself.  While I in no way intend to paint my wife as the model woman for all men, she is most-definitely the model women for me.  In fact, I not only “accept” my wife’s traits, but I actually love and prefer them.  I love that she has a strong personality.  I love that she can be loud and that she has an edge to her humor.

However, at the end of the day, my wife joyfully respects me and honors my leadership by submitting to my headship as the Church submits and respects the headship of Christ.  My marriage is a testament to the Gospel’s power to both bring us in alignment with God’s created order (male headship) while preventing us from sin (viewing each other as both co-equal and necessary to reflecting God’s image).

My marriage presents a bit of a problem for those that would prefer to pigeon-hole those that teach male headship.  Since the dynamics of my marriage are obvious and observable to anyone that knows us, I leverage my marriage to convey a sanctified picture of male headship.  For men that have a different home-dynamic, you might have other ways of displaying sanctified male-headship to others.  My point is that you better be ready to present a very personal case that destroys people’s pre-conceived (and often emotionally-charged) notions of the domineering, abusive male chauvinist.

It is my belief that if one is going to teach and persuade others of male-headship, one must have clarity on at least one key talking-point that addresses the issue in each of the aforementioned fronts–biblically, theologically and personally.  The truth is, some people will only be willing to discuss the matter from one angle.  Do you know how you would discuss male headship in such a way that both persuades and conveys the Gospel?

Did Jesus “cleanse” or “clear” the Temple?

This past Sunday at CityView, we took a look at Mark 11 and Jesus’ reaction to the activities taking place in the Temple near Passover.  The actual account starts in verse 15, but the story needs to be placed in context, going back to verse one.  To listen to the sermon, go HERE.

Near the middle of my sermon, I mentioned that Jesus’ intent was not to cleanse or reform or set-straight the manner in which Temple worship should be conducted…but rather to clear the Temple so as to communicate His rejection of the Jerusalem Temple in making way for a better Temple–Himself (John 2:18:22).

With Jesus as our better and ultimate Temple, we are no longer in need of continual and short-lasting animal sacrifices.  Because of Chrst’s shed blood and broken body, we are provided a better Temple sacrifice whereby our sin-penalty can be fully paid  for those that trust in the sufficiency of Jesus’ finished work on the cross.

Thus Christ’s sacrifice on the cross also clears the way to enter the presense of God uninhibited by veils and walls.  There is no longer a barrier due to pedigree (Gentiles weren’t allowed beyond the outer courts of the Jerusalem Temple) OR even due to our status as sinners (w/ the Jerusalem Temple, nobody was allowed into the Most Holy Place where God’s presence dwelt, except the High Priest once a year because of the depth and seriousness of our sin would result in immediate death).

So how do we know Jesus wasn’t also trying to reform the Temple worship?  The following is a synopsis of the arguments made by Professor David E. Garland:

1.  Some believe Jesus was reforming the Temple worship by re-claiming the commercial space in the outer courts for it’s proper use of prayer (for the Gentiles).  The problem with this is that it is theorized that the small market in question was actually located in the Royal Stoa–not spread out all over the outer court.  Also, the outer court was not necessarily viewed as the “courtyard of the Gentiles” during Jesus’ day…but rather, the place from which the Gentiles could go no further into the temple.  Plus, such a reform still wouldn’t do anything about giving the Gentiles access to the inner place of God’s presence…so it would seem to be a minor reform if it was meant as a reform at all.

2.  If Jesus intention was reform, then it was ultimately a failure.  His alleged reforms probably wouldn’t be able to be enforced on an ongoing basis.  In other words, the Temple commerce probably recovered and continued the next day or soon thereafter.  Surely Jesus would not have attempted to reform something he knew very well would not “take”.

3.  Some believe that Jesus was reclaiming the purity of the Temple from the desecration by money-changers, sellers, etc.  However, there is little evidence that the outer courts were considered “sacred” in the same way as the inner courts and the Holy of Holies.

4.  Some believe Jesus was making a statement concerning corruption (den of robbers) in regards to the defrauding of buyers and the greed of the high priest and his family in charging for goods and services.  But since Jesus throws out sellers AND buyers, there is little evidence to show that the elimination of corruption was his motive.  Plus, this is a misunderstanding of the term “den of robbers” as I outlined in the sermon on Sunday.

As a final comment, perhaps some would want to see “reform” in the Temple action so as to conjure up a modern “application” for the text (fight against injustice of those that would defraud like the money-changers, fight against those that would impede prayer, etc.).

Unfortunately, we are sometimes addicted to application because it gives us something to “do” which sometimes feeds our tendencies towards a works-based righteousness.  The truth of the matter is that this text gives us less to do and more to “feel” in weight and seriousness.

While most of those reading this might not worship at THE Temple…we have plenty of “temples” in our life that serve as functional saviors that seek to replace or do a work-around the only Temple that both makes a complete and final sacrifice while making God fully approachable at all–Jesus Christ.

As we continue in Holy Week, perhaps intead of feverishly trying to apply the Mark 11 text, we might need to feel its weight as we approach Good Friday and Resurrection Sunday.  Is Jesus your Temple during this season?  What temples might need to be rejected in your life?

I’m rarely the first to find the cool and useful tools…but I usually find a way to use them in such a way for  maximum usefulness for what I do.  Since my system has been useful to at least one other person recently, I thought I’d share what I do.  Caution…if you don’t use gmail in any way, this will be useless to you…and shame on you for not using gmail.  Also…if you’re an organization guru, this won’t impress you.  This is for regular people that are drowning in their own appointments, details and to-do lists.

1.  I have ALWAYS used an email/calendaring client of some kind.  Back in the day, I used Eudora lite…now, I’m a faithful MS Outlook user (Ical would be sufficient if you’re a slave to Steve Jobs).  My reasons are really simple.  First, Outlook is still heavily used and therefore heavily supported by 3rd party software (add-ins).  Case in point, the “Getting things Done” add in is simply great and a must if you’re a GTD fan (if you even know what that is).  If you’re not, don’t worry…my system is not dependent on this.  The other reason for using an email/calendaring client on your computer (for popping your email) was highlighted the other day when gmail went down for half the world.  If you don’t pop your mail and do your calendaring from your machine, you had no access to your account.  Plus, it’s always smart to have a copy of your mail on your computer, IMO.

2.  Ok…so when you choose an email/calendar client, use THAT calendar as your go-to appoinment making calendar.  Be disciplined about this.  Refuse to make appointments until you’ve been able to check with that particular calendar.  If you have to, email yourself from your phone to remind yourself to look at appointment options for a meeting.

3.  Alright…after establishing your desktop client, download the google sync for syncing your client calendar to your gmail calendar.  Set it up so that the gmail calendar always gets synced with your client calendar and that your client calendar is never affected by the gmail calendar.  The goal is to have ONE calendar…your client calendar…that is your go-to for making appointments and creating tasks (plus, gmail calendar doesn’t do tasks…yet).

4.  Now…if you’re an iphone or blackberry (or some other smart device) user, download the google tools for your phone (this will include sync in addition to many other tools).  Set your phone/device to RECEIVE appointments/updates from your gmail calendar.  Don’t allow your phone to update your gmail calendar.  This is meant to be a one-way procedure. Gmail should ALWAYS update the phone.

4.  Quick aside:  Why the one-way syncing?  Doesn’t that defeat the purpose of syncing?  Well…yes.  But practically speaking, I’ve noticed that many people’s calendars get messed up when the sync gets confused (which it sometimes does when syncing two or more devices/machines).  Allowing a “one-way street” of data ensures one origin point for any creation or edits.  I’ve yet to have the one-way approach fail me like the two (or three) way approach has failed me.

5.  Quick aside 2: Why go through gmail?  Simple–convenience.  While you could USB sync your phone/device with your computer or even do this wirelessly with some phone/computer combos, this is usually a manual procedure for most people.  Under my method, Gmail calendar is updated in the background while you’re working (and not thinking about it).  Further, gmail calendar will update your phone wirelessly without you thinking about it.  You only have to worry about your calendaring client being up to date.  Gmail sync pretty much handles everything else without you thinking about it.  This is priceless in my opinion.

Let me give an example of how this all works out.  I’m in the lobby after church and someone wants to meet with me.  I tell them I can’t make a meeting without my calendar in front of me.  So either ask them to email me some times they’re available OR I email it to myself right there from my blackberry.

On Monday morning, I look at the email they’ve probably sent me and determine which date/time works.  I confirm the date/time via email and make the appointment on my Outlook calendar.  I go about my business.  Meanwhile…over the next 30 minutes, gmail calendar has synced with my desktop calendar and now has the appointment.  Shortly after that, my blackberry is updated by my gmail calendar.

This all occurs while I’m either working or whatever.  Later in the day, I’m out and about (away from my calendar and internet) and look at my blackberry and see that the appointment I made earlier is on my phone without me having done anything.  Genius.  Technology has literally worked for me while I work on other things–the way things SHOULD be. 

Ok…without the rationalization and detailed explainations…here’s the simple low-down on what to do:

1.  Make appointments from your client/computer calendar only.

2.  Have google sync already setup on your calendar to sync ONE-WAY with your gmail calendar (gmail calendar is always updated by your client calendar).

3.  Have google sync on your phone/device already setup to sync one-way with your gmail calendar (phone/device is always updated by your gmail calendar).

4.  Enjoy technology that works FOR you.

This is only one way for things to work…but it’s extremely effective after having lived it for many months.  If you know of any tweaks to this, I’d love to know about them.  I’m always in the pursuit of freeing my time more.  But a word of warning.   I don’t consider “get an iphone” to be a tweak.  That’s for all you iphone snobs out there.

My only wish is that gmail calendar would sync my outlook tasks as well.  As it is, I STILL need to manually connect my computer to my phone/device for task updates.  This is only a minor irritant, since appointments are much more timely and critical than tasks in my system (which is based on GTD).

With the never ending options for Communication and Social Networking, I’ve come to develop philosophies on how or when something should be used. Of course, these are MY rules and do not apply to you, necessarily. Whatever your approach, I’m beginning to think it’s both counter-productive and even dangerous not to have a clear sense as to why you use what you use.

For instance, email is used for basic communication…pure and simple. While Michael Scott would disagree and say that email is for sending funny forwards to everyone…we all know that Michael Scott represents everything we mock in the real world.  But I digress.

For me, blogging provides the outlet I occasionally crave to write out my thoughts on a particular subject (like now).  Blogging is not–and should not be–something that enslaves me to write everyday.  Blogging is done at MY pace.  If I don’t blog for a month, that’s fine.  The purpose of the blog is not to produce content or even to be read by hundreds of people…but to clearly articulate my thoughts on a matter or argue persuasively for something I believe in.  It’s an excellent exercise for when something is really nagging at me.  For me, I simply can’t blog about what I just ate or what I’m wearing.  For others, that might be fine and fit their purposes for blogging…but for me, it has to be an essay-worth topic, primarily.

Facebook seems to be the more intelligent (and free) version of classmates.com. While I utilize it for interactions with my current crop of friends and family, my main thrill with Facebook is that I can actually re-connect with friends and foe alike from high school and college. Great stuff…and I have some thoughts on Facebook that I want to share in the future.  But again…I digress.

I don’t really use Myspace because–and forgive me Myspace users–it seems more like the creepy under-belly of the social networking scene. Ugly interfaces (that have been changing, I’ve heard) and those constant messages from people wanting your number so that we could “meet” were enough to drive me away. Facebook just seems to fit my style and comfort-level better.

Speaking of Facebook, there is one feature where things get a little messy concerning how people use Facebook–status updates. The reason it gets messy is because of Twitter. I’m warming up to the idea of twitter and it’s potential applications…but am not sure why it’s intermixed with Facebook for so many users. Perhaps my disconnect is that I use Facebook for completely different purposes–interacting with friends, both new and old.  For those friends, my purpose is to connect and converse in a manner consistent with a never-ending social event or party.

To me, Twitter is best used within the arena you currently exist…be it a job, industry, group/club, etc.  For instance, if I connect a Twitter post to my Facebook status, I have concerns for how pertinent my current work-related status has to do with my 2nd grade friend that doesn’t live in my town, work in my field , etc. Too much is lost in translation and you become one of those people they skip when reading status updates. In short, it seems to defeat the purpose of social networking on both fronts.

Similarly, I’m confused by the “what I’m eating” banter I sometimes see on Twitter.  Again…not trying to be critical of someone else’s choice of use…but that’s not going to be a compelling reason for me to follow someone on Twitter.  This strikes me as creepy and “stalking by permission”.  But hey…if that’s how you use it…whatever works for you.  I just won’t be following you. 

Ok…so this has brought me to a conclusion as to how and why I utilize the aforementioned tools:

Email: Pretty basic…specific communication. Little explanation needed. Use this constantly.  Those who need it, already have my email address.

Blogging:  Extended writing on pariticular matters that will resemble a magazine article or short book chapter–and only when I actually have something to say.  This is my blog, so no need to list the address.

Facebook:  Purely social networking.  I treat Facebook (along with the groups and pages features) like a party that I never leave.  It’s the friend and family zone for sharing random thoughts, Seinfeldian-observations, pics, videos, links, etc.  My Facebook page can be found HERE.  I won’t approve you as a friend unless I know you or I’m reasonable sure you’re somehow connected with CityView or Acts29.

Twitter:  I’m new to this…and I’m mainly experimenting right now.  I’m not 100% sure I’ll even continue.  However, I see a unique application for this in that I can update my status as it relates directly to my job in particular and my field in general.  As a pastor, this provides immediate updates regarding pertinent info for followers within our church, accountability on how I’m  working my schedule and generally useful information–both to church members and to other pastors and/or followers in my field.  My Twitter ID is Rick_White and can be found HERE.

In short…determine why you use what you use and stick to your own rules with singular focus.  This is the only way you’ll steward these tools (and your time) well.

I rarely fire off a link and run…but that’s what I’m going to do in this post. One of our pastor candidates sent this to me today. The author of THIS article has nailed it on the head regarding the “new conservative” amongst southern baptists. I look forward to his subsequent articles.

To say that things have been busy would be a monumental understatement. I can’t recall another time in my life where I have felt so completely overwhelmed with things to do. Of course, I enjoy to write…but the 20 year baton is a luxury that must take a back seat when life is full.

Having said that, I wanted to at least make a quick plug, prayer request and announcement that this Sunday, February 15th, we will have our grand opening service at the new campus of CityView Church. We’re excited to say the least. This weekend, we will begin a series of messages asking the question “What if…?”.

The idea behind the series is to introduce CityView again to our community by talking about the things that we seem to do well. Every church has a list like this…so over the next 6 weeks, we’ll be preaching through some passages that highlight what we bring to the table.

A final note: In way or another, this blog will be changing. Either this blog will feed our new blog on CityView’s soon-to-come new web site OR vice versa. Either way, it probably means some shorter entries added to the typical essay’s I tend to write.

The following is the final edited video from my recent trip to Poland. The video is meant to give a snapshot of the need and opportunity that exists in the former Soviet block. If you’re not involved anywhere in the world, consider these opportunities…

A good crowd this morning at The Village for the DFW church planters boot camp.  Chandler is talking out of Matthew 5:13…Salt and Light.  Matt started out talking about the “width” of our churches…and our lack of depth.  As I’m listening, I keep thinking about how the evangelical tendency is to speak the Gospel unto “justification” and ignore the power of the Gospel unto “sanctification”.  Said another way, we preach and communicate the Gospel so as to walk people past the line of faith, but don’t continue to offer the Gospel as the only answer to their continued problems with lust…pride…arrogance…laziness.  You get the point.

Some believe depth is knowledge of the Bible and all things theology…but how can this be so if we don’t live what we believe?  Still others say that depth is about living out what we believe…but how can this be depth if we do this with white-knuckled power or with poor motivations?

Depth…how can we ever go deep without seeing the Gospel as our continued hope that goes far beyond the baptism tank?

Starting tomorrow, the Acts 29 Network will be sponsoring a church planter’s boot camp at The Village Church.  Between boot camps where I was assessed and now as an assessor, I’ve attended a total of six of these events.  While that’s a lot of boot camps, I find myself always learning something new each time.

In addition, I can’t help but be refreshed and encouraged by the many young men answering the call to plant a church.  Some will be assessed and “green-lit” while others will be told to wait.  No matter which category a man finds himself in, I’m always amazed by the willingness of young men to risk secure jobs and safety to explore a potential call on their life.  I’m also amazed at how many of these men actually trust other men to speak truth and authority into their life regarding their call.

If you’re in the DFW area, it’s too late to pre-register…but take a chance to register at the door.  It’s going to be a great time and worth your dollars.  Main speakers are Scott Thomas, Matt Chandler, Darrin Patrick, JR Vassar, Mark Driscoll, Jonathan Dodson and Matt Carter.  On a CityView Church note, I’m super-excited that our Worship Pastor–Adam Crawford–will be leading the morning worship each day.  In addition to doing assessments, I’ll be co-leading a breakout with Jonathan Dodson.  For those already attending, see you there!

There’s some fascinating information regarding the effectiveness of door-to-door communication from churches at Ed Stetzer’s web site.  The research is surprising…and very useful.  Go HERE to read more.