But this just leaves me stumped. Please don’t take my concern about this issue of a “masculine feeling Christianity” as some sort of compromise of values. I’m not bothered by it because I’m trying to build any bridges to egalitarianism. I’m bothered by it because it seems to me that Pastor John Piper–who I have incredible respect for–is creating some confusion between biblical character and biblical roles.  I don’t disagree with all of his points, but allow me to reflect a bit.

1. A masculine ministry believes that it is more fitting that men take the lash of criticism that must come in a public ministry, than to unnecessarily expose women to this assault.

After reading his first point in totality, I started to hear the rumble of the drums, and now the song “Holding Out for a Hero” just won’t leave my head. The idea that it is “more fitting” for men to “have courage in the midst of combat” sounds very chivalrous but can be an intellectual shipwreck for women in the church. (Women don’t need to be handed any more excuses for not being able to give an answer). Now I understand that the context of his words has to do with “public ministry,” but while pastoral ministry may have a high degree of prominence, it certainly isn’t the only public ministry–unless he’s suggesting women shouldn’t be writing blogs and books and speaking at conferences….and I don’t think he really intends to say that.  At the end of this section, Piper states, “But we wish the men were numerous enough and strong enough and courageous enough that the women could rejoice in the men, rather than take their place.” We live in a fallen world and never has there been a time that men would perfectly stand firm for Christ. Certainly we can desire this, but the reality is that women also need to be prepared to contend with the assaults against faith and many woman are. Has the fact that woman are prepared and are being prepared been a problem for the mission of the church? It certainly isn’t against the teachings of scripture.

Courage is what some philosophers call a non-moral virtue. If you’re courageous, you are virtuous. If you don’t have courage, you lack that virtue but you’re not immoral. Within the context of defending the faith against assaults, courage takes on more of the aspects of a moral virtue. Being prepared to give an answer demands a courage of conviction and we would be remiss to tell women that this is a virtue that primarily men should be concerned with. The assaults on Christianity BY women these days are going almost completely unanswered by men in the church, and maybe this is part of Piper’s point. But this language of a “masculine” Christianity has the power to dissuade women from engaging and that makes it a mistake.

2. A masculine ministry seizes on full-orbed, biblical doctrine with a view to teaching it to the church and pressing it with courage into the lives of the people.

So here we see the language of courage become more prominent. A masculine ministry that teaches doctrine is to do so in courageous ways. A masculine ministry cannot be timid. Piper writes, “Men should feel a special responsibility for the life and safety and joy of the community that depends on putting these “sharply cut doctrines” in place. This issue is not what women are able to do, but what men ought to do.” Now regularly, I teach students in ethics on the is/ought fallacy. The way things are isn’t necessarily how they ought to be. We can agree that men ought to promote correct doctrine in their home and family. But is it about “masculinity” that they ought to do this, or is it about “Christianity?” That women are able AND activated should not prevent men from doing what ought to be done. But we should ask about the condition of the contemporary church if women are unable to say anything effective when it comes to doctrine. This should be a grave concern to our male leadership.

3. A masculine ministry brings out the more rugged aspects of the Christian life and presses them on the conscience of the church with a demeanor that accords with their proportion in Scripture.

This remains a bit vague and requires a bit more of Piper’s own words for explanation. He writes:

The point is that the theme of Christian warfare and other rugged aspects of biblical theology and life should draw the men of the church to take them up in the spirit of a protective warrior in his family and “tribe,” rather than expecting the women to take on the spirit of a combatant for the sake of the church.

Again, if he’s speaking about men stepping up and fulfilling their call as Christians, then he’s right. But I’m not sure this is helpful to the cause of complementarianism, however.  It is one thing to expect more of men, but to juxtapose what they should be doing with what women may or may not be doing makes little sense.  In that women are the primary caregivers of children, do we really want to encourage them away from spiritual combativeness? What our kids are facing in today’s culture requires both parents to be able to respond to the assault on Christianity. Women need to model this for their children and for other women. No passage or theological implication in scripture communicates the opposite.

4. A masculine ministry takes up heavy and painful realities in the Bible, and puts them forward to those who may not want to hear them.

Again, why must this be described as masculine. If masculinity = courage, to what does femininity equate? Perhaps ‘courage’ is the opposite of ‘tenderness’ ? Piper writes:

The point is not that women are unable to lift the weight or bear the pain of the reality of hell. The point is not that they are unable to press it into those who don’t want to hear. The point is that one of the marks of mature manhood is the inclination to spare her that load and its costs. We admire her for embracing the truth, we share her longings to nurture with tenderness, and, if we can, we carry for her the flaming coals of final condemnation.

Again, while Piper’s focus seems to be about getting men activated as theologians, apologists and evangelists, he’s appealing to their sense of chivalry to motivate them. Or perhaps unknowingly he’s appealing to their chauvinism? Women do need courageous husbands and fathers, but women also need to be prepared to contend for the faith — this is a call to Christians, not a call to men.

I’d also like to point out that there is one prominent women’s writer and speaker who has a very difficult time including “hell” in her discussions on salvation. The “wrath of God” has almost no role in her presentation of the gospel.  I am unaware of this has changed in her ministry, but if this is what Piper is arguing for, then we are guaranteed a culture of women in the church who are incapable of giving a full expression of the gospel. You can’t talk about heaven without talking about hell.

5. A masculine ministry heralds the truth of Scripture, with urgency and forcefulness and penetrating conviction, to the world and in the regular worship services of the church.

I’m not going to speak to this point because I am in agreement with Piper on the issue of gender roles in the church. These roles are not in place, however, because of male courage, but because of maleness relating to the order of creation.

6. A masculine ministry welcomes the challenges and costs of strong, courageous leadership without complaint or self-pity with a view to putting in place principles and structures and plans and people to carry a whole church into joyful fruitfulness.

A masculine ministry? Or a biblical ministry?

7. A masculine ministry publicly and privately advocates for the vital and manifold ministries of women in the life and mission of the church.

“It’s not about the privilege of power, but about the burden of responsibility to enhance the lives of others.” In context here, Piper is speaking about encouraging the “fullest engagement of every member of the church in joyful, fruitful ministry.”  But he describes this as the aim of “masculine ministry.” That only men (in my view as a complementarian) are called to be pastors and elders does not necessitate we refer to it as “masculine ministry.” It is ministry and is under the leadership of men. Amazingly, I can easily relate this whole conversation to food. Sometimes we think of burgers and baked beans as very “manly” food and quiche and endive salads as very feminine (if you believe the stereotypes).  But when a woman is preparing these meals, they don’t take on any particular aspect of her femininity because she’s the one cooking them. She’s neither masculine or feminine as a chef because the food has qualities that can be judged only as good or bad, but not feminine or masculine.

8. A masculine ministry models for the church the protection, nourishing, and cherishing of a wife and children as part of the high calling of leadership.
His point here is that church leaders have a responsibility to the home which should be modeled to the church. All of us can agree with this point.

It is not my intention in offering these reflections to do anything more than to provide some insight into the implications of these statements. I appreciate Piper’s desire for a church with spiritually healthier men, but this can be encouraged without appeals to brute masculinity. Perhaps this was his effort to soften the recent methods of promoting masculinity in the church…if you remember the blog post on masculine “tap out” baptisms, you know exactly what I’m talking about. But even still, how men SHOULD be as leaders in the church and home doesn’t require a contrast that endangers the life of the mind among women, and I believe that’s part of what his talk accomplishes. Women can’t afford to hold out for a hero, but when they do show themselves, they will not go unnoticed simply because a woman also happens to be a competent believer in Christ and contender for the faith once delivered to all the saints. CWFC

Positive and negative approaches to ministry–without the personal attacks, twisting of facts, dirt-digging and mud-slinging–are also necessary strategies. We need to teach positively about all that scripture teaches so that Christians are well-equipped for living out their calling. But we also need to be ready to speak up and speak out when biblical Christianity is under assault, preparing the other Christians in our lives with how to think about and respond to these issues. Similar to the candidate who wants the voters to know why another candidate does not speak well for the party platform, Christians need to have the courage to do the same without the personal attacks.

Recently I saw someone comment on another blog that the writer should be cautious about defining herself according to her enemies. This didn’t mean she wasn’t justified in some of her negative critiques. The commenter just wanted her to realize that we need to be known for, and maybe primarily for, our positive contributions to the life of the Church.

There is tremendous wisdom in that statement and I couldn’t agree more. This is the perspective that motivated me for the last 10 years to bring theological tools to Christian women through my writing and speaking ministry–positive information that would help them grow in their faith and knowledge of God. Many times the delivery of negative information, no matter how critical or contextual it may be at the time, it can be too much information to be properly categorized by the listener. Many of us who are teachers have had years to grow in the truth of scripture and understand almost immediately the serious implications of statements or beliefs held by others. It all depends on the particular circumstances, but we should be well-prepared for the positive expression of faith in all of our teaching opportunities, and be ready to discuss at those critical moments the negatives that need to be addressed.

But do we, as Christians, speak enough to the problems of false or questionable teachings within the Christian subculture? This question has been raised recently with the Elephant Room’s guest T.D. Jakes and whether or not he is a modalist. To Christians concerned with orthodoxy, it matters a great deal that we address the issue and I think all involved in the conversation over Jakes’ doctrinal position agree that it should be done with great respect to Jakes and with reverence to truth. But I also believe we’ve become a bit too generous in our orthodoxy. In remaining silent on certain issues for the sake of peace or the desire for some degree of theological diversity, lines have been blurred between what is biblical and what is not such that those who need to see the difference in the books and blogs they read can know the difference. In some cases, many have been fully deceived.

Last night in my ethics class, we spent a lot of time discussing the idea of relativism as it relates to the rhetorical question, “who are you to judge?” The question, as you probably know from experience, isn’t really soliciting an answer. It’s more of an assertion that only the person delivering the question has the right to judge. Many claims to Christianity today are looking a lot like this “who are you to judge?” situation of relativism. Rules of interpreting scripture are being set aside and replaced with emotional, unscientific approaches to studying the text. We are mocked for suggesting something can be viewed as “biblical” or “unbiblical.” The result of not speaking up? A confused church. A culture of theological illiteracy. More people who have been made afraid of speaking up for fear of being marginalized by the cool people. “Who are you to judge?” in all its forms is a bullying tactic and, ironically, an obviously anti-intellectual approach to defending a school of thought. Like “who are you to judge?”, not all question asking is really question asking.

As the goal of apologetics is to defend the faith, protecting the members of Christ’s body from those seeking to distort the truth. Some apologists have gone rogue with almost exclusively negative “campaigns” aimed at their worldview opponent. Others in apologetics have done well, serving God in this ministry but making a defense “with meekness and gentleness.” Let’s continue talking about what’s right and true and good and beautiful, but let’s also protect the minds of believers from the gross distortions from within.

Evangelical women need to realize the nature and implication of their demands. Pastoral ministry is much more than preaching from the pulpit on Sunday morning and being a recognizable authority in the church and community. It also involves reaching into people’s lives Monday through Sunday and being on call virtually 24 hours a day. It requires being a messenger of hope, and hope can only exist where God is knowable and faith is more than crossing your fingers. Trusting God builds character because the activity is rooted in knowing and embracing God attributes and activities throughout history. Deconstructing Christianity destroys  faith, hope, and love. Reconstruction continues to obscure what is real and true.

Pastoral leadership requires the willingness to step into the messiness of people’s lives and to minister at a personal, extremely sacrificial level. When was the last time you told everyone at church to call you 24/7 when they are in trouble? When was the last time you dropped out of a family activity to visit someone in the hospital? How often are you reaching out to the the home-bound members of your church? None of these activities requires the title of pastor to perform them and being a leader means, at some point, talking about something other than what it means to be a leader. It means functioning as such because the true leaders in our churches today are those that don’ t need to be told to serve, they simply are doing it. In true humility they don’t demand that which seemingly corresponds to the service.

I think it’s an aspect of our fallen nature to seek getting something for ourselves through our ministry–or to skew the pursuit of validation as a form of ministry. This reminds me of the gospel account of the disciples debating who would be first in the Kingdom of heaven.

And they came to Capernaum. And when he was in the house he asked them, “What were you discussing on the way?” But they kept silent, for on the way they had argued with one another about who was the greatest. And he sat down and called the twelve. And he said to them, “If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all.” (Mark 9:33-35 ESV)

Are you trying to serve but with strings attached? Do people know you first for your demands of equality or your commitment to the Gospel, that all us are sinners and in need of a relationship with Christ? Our faith journey is important–including all those questions and doubts–but at some point we need to arrive at our destination, certain about the call to make disciples who desire to grow in faith and knowledge of God, joining us at this redemptive destination of salvation through Christ alone. CWFC

(I do agree with the general sentiment communicated at the  recent EFCA Theology conference that churches should consider the value of having women’s ministry leaders on staff –not in positions of authority but as skilled ministers and voices of femininity that have something to contribute…will blog about that another day)

Similar to Jesus’ statement that we will always have the poor among us, I tend to believe the same is true for the complainers who can’t handle public expressions of faith—and we’re seeing it intensify with the Tebow story. Tebow has found himself the target of crass reactions from talk shows to Twitter, from those whose mission in life is to ensure a separation of church and everything else. “Comedian” Bill Maher’s infamous Christmas Eve tweet ended with (I’ll spare you the expletive portion) “Somewhere in hell Satan is tebowing, saying to Hitler “Hey, Buffalo’s killing them.” Christians can’t cower to the complainers or Christianity will be silenced entirely.

So back to the main question, does God care about football? Liberal political analyst Bob Beckel from Fox’s “The Five” has been quite helpful in considering this question, especially since he’s the one who raised it. As a commentator, Beckel often comes across as a mean-spirited ideologue, but his new stint on “The Five” has revealed a man with serious Christian convictions and a perspective on “the Tebow” that I can appreciate. This now endearing Beckel holds, and I am paraphrasing, that “the Tebow,” the Jesus-Tebow (fan-created) shirts, and similar expressions of faith related to this new movement are irreverent and perhaps complicit in cheapening the message of Christ through mass media. Beckel has been open about his Christianity on “The Five,” and though I don’t know anything about his doctrinal views, his concern about reducing our relationship with the Redeemer to a seasonal football fad is a point well taken. But their conversation on the topic persists and he continues to pose this question—does God care about football? Because Beckel seems to want to protect a view of God that separates his holiness from our sinfulness, his assumption is no—God could care less about a football game. But is he correct?

While God may or may not care about who wins a football game, one thing is true—everyone is talking about the God. When Tebow is involved in a miraculous play and he gives glory to God, God is acknowledged. When the Bronco’s lose, mocking commences and some suggest that God has withdrawn his hand of blessing over “his man” Tebow. But did you notice that no matter how the game ends, we’re still talking about God?

The sovereign God of the universe cares about all of his creation. We can count on him as all powerful, all knowing, and all loving. And God is not only aware of our personal circumstances, but our circumstances are entirely within his sovereign control. There are no limits to what God will use to draw man unto himself, including football. That Tebow bows in humility to his Lord after a great play in a game doesn’t necessitate that he believes God is rooting for the Broncos. And I don’t believe God is rooting for the Broncos. What I do believe is that God wants to draw attention—worship—to himself and to his mission. Tebow is a man with a mission off the field that many might not know about were it not for his on-the-field displays of love for God.

So does God care about football? To answer Mr. Beckel, I believe he does…and I believe we can make this affirmation without risk to the reverence for God required by the Christian narrative. But I also think this is a helpful discussion for the Church to be having because this isn’t the first time in recent history there have been questions about Christian fads that might be undermining the message. But no matter what Tebow accomplishes on the field, at this point, we’re all talking about God. That’s amazing! Tell me what you think.

You may be wondering how it is that a self-described Calvinist could believe that anyone’s faith might be hampered by anything, because if God draws anyone to him, they will come and grow in the knowledge of God. While God’s will cannot be thwarted, he uses the work of the worker he’s called to reach into the lives of others. It’s not for us to decide that God has acted or not acted in the heart and mind of an individual. Instead, we are to continue sharing the truth of his revelation and defending it as necessary.

But the ugly truth is that within the church there is a persistent assault on the inerrancy and authority of scripture.  An effort is being made to reduce it to a document of inspirational stories and esteem-building proverbs. It’s no longer to be viewed as a historically accurate document because its accuracy is being challenged. By inerrancy, allow me refer to the the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy,

“We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.”

This is a fairly self-explanatory statement, but entirely necessary for the Bible to have any authority in our lives. Yes, there is to be a necessary association between inerrancy and Biblical authority. For any written document to have authority, it must demonstrate internal accuracy. For example, any legal contract that contains errors can be disregarded as having any binding authority on those involved in the signing of that contract. But if this contract, when agreed upon by all parties, is free of errors it retains its authority. It enjoys oversight over the particular circumstances.  This is the claim made of scripture–and by scripture– especially as a response to those vigorously seeking to disrupt its authoritative place in the life of the church by attacking its internal reliability.

For the red letter Christians who like to cite only Jesus to develop their theological statements, I would highlight the fact that the gospels document Jesus’ regular citing of other portions of scripture.  But if scripture is not free of falsehood, fraud or deceit, we can’t even know if Jesus’ words are recorded as accurate at any point. If any of the Bible is to be regarded as erroneous, who among us is above it such that we can discern which parts of it are free of falsehood, fraud or deceit? The correct answer is that none of us are able to decide the answer to this. Pondering this question reminds of the supernatural origins of the Bible…written by men by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The Church never decided that the Bible is inerrant and, therefore, authoritative.

It’s an all or nothing situation we find ourselves in.  Either the Bible is free from errors, or it isn’t. Likewise, because of the claims of scripture–that God is sovereign, man is fallen, man needs a Savior, that we are to pursue a life that reflects the holiness of Christ, and so on–if the Bible is free of errors as is the fundamental assumption of Christianity, then these areas of scripture are to be regarded authoritatively. They are not optional positions and are to be understood and honored by the reader.

One blog commenter wrote this  on the stories of the Bible: “I don’t know whether this really happened, but I know that this story is True.” This sort of esoteric (understood by or meant for only the select few who have special knowledge or interest) handling of scripture reduces the worldview to a subjective, personal experience that hardly requires it to meet the intellectual demands of a haughty culture intent on debunking Christianity. It does the work of debunking Christianity by impugning its historicity. Do you understand that when questions are raised up against the inerrancy and authority of scripture, it is at risk of having any meaningful place within the life of the church? I contend that without an inerrant and authoritative Bible, the church is only a shell and there is no life in it.

More on this matter as the newest version of this debate continues.

Because few can afford to enroll in seminary or take the time out of life to make it happen, this list of books–for personal or group study–should help you to get started with what is being read at the college and graduate level. Though this isn’t an exhaustive list of materials it is the core: Bible, systematic theology, apologetics, practical ministry, church history, doctrine, counseling, and both sides of the gender role debate. Chances are I’ve missed something because I’m sure most of you will have lots to recommend. The only subject that’s missing is ethics though the Systematic Theology and Total Truth both provide discussions in this area. I’m working on producing that ethics  material for your bookshelf now. So take a closer look at this list:

The Bible An obvious necessity!
The Portable Seminary David Horton. A “first look” systematic theology book. It gets at all the core areas of theology and doctrine, but in shorter sections written at a high school level.
How to Read the Bible for All It’s Worth Fee & Stuart. This is a standard college-level text for understanding the art and science of biblical interpretation (hermeneutics).
Every Thought Captive  Richard Pratt. An introduction to apologetics written at a high school level. Theologically driven, not evidence-based.
Practical Theology for Women A recent book by Wendy Horger Alsup, it introduces the discipline of theological study to women in the church and serves as a great apologetic for the role of theology in the context of women’s ministry. If you’re new to this area of study, this is a must-read.
Think A recent book by John Piper, he writes on the importance of the life of the mind for every Christian. We can’t love our God without our whole self if our mind is disengaged.
When Life and Beliefs Collide Carolyn Custis James‘ first book that argues for the importance of theology in a woman’s walk with God. Theology need not be the “dreaded T word!” (I love this book!)
Relativism: Feet Planted Firmly in Mid Air The apologetics classic by Frank Beckwith and Greg Koukl addressing the problems with cultural relativism and how Christians should respond. A must-read!
Spiritual Mothering  This is a great little book, Susan Hunt writes on the nature of ministry among women based on the Titus 2 mandate.
Idols of the Heart  Elyse Fitzpatrick deals with the every day problem of idolatry, revealing to the reader theological truths that lead to our redemption or our self-destruction. Required reading for every Christian woman!
Creed or Chaos? Ever wonder about the importance of doctrine? Wonder no more. Dorothy Sayers, a contemporary of C.S. Lewis, argues against a fast food, watered down Christianity.
Letters to a Diminished Church  Another classic by Dorothy Sayers. In Letters, she provides a series of essays on the importance of doctrine for every Christian.
Women Helping Women Edited by Elyse Fitzpatrick and Carol Cornish. An incredible resource for women in ministry who need additional counseling resources from a biblical counseling perspective rooted firmly in scripture. This text addresses questions of parenting and addiction to sexual sins.
A General Introduction to the Bible Geisler & Nix. This classic text addresses the inspiration, canonization, transmission, and translation of scripture.
Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from its Cultural Captivity Nancy Pearcey. For those who tend to toward a fragmented life where lines are drawn between matters of faith, politics, medicine and more, this classic will help you to bring it all back together so that your outlook on the world is through the lens of scripture, not an adaptation to the world.
Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism  Piper/Grudem, et al. If you’re interested in understanding the arguments of complementarians, this is the book to read. Whether you agree or not, you should know what they say.
Systematic Theology  This text by Wayne Grudem is a seminary standard. It’s not a difficult read though it is intended for graduate level study. It’s an extended version of The Portable Seminary.
Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy  Pierce/Groothuis, et al. If you’re interested in understanding the arguments of egalitarians, this is the book to read. Whether you agree or not, you should know what they say.
The History of Christianity  Tim Dowley. We know American or world history better than we know church history. A text like this or something similar will help you to know more about notable points in history from the various church councils concerned with properly articulating doctrines and addressing heresy to the establishment of various denominations.

Consider hosting a Women’s Worldview Institute for our women’s leadership team at your church. This is a quarterly theological studies program utilizing The Portable Seminary as the primary text. Let me know if this list has been helpful to your studies or if its a confirmation of what you’re already doing. I wish you continual blessings in your ministry!

Christianity Isn’t a List of Rules
The lack of commitment to any one church was due to my mom’s search for one that was perfect. The signature attributes of this church would be their generosity to people in need—because we were in need—and a lack of sin among its leaders or attendees. As you might have guessed, we spent a number of years in a number of churches. Significant time was spent in the Roman Catholic Church, a few charismatic congregations, and all of my high school years were with the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Obviously, that perfect church was never found, though perhaps a pleasant and unintended consequence of her quest was my yearning to better know who God says he is.

A relationship with God played second or maybe even third chair to the legalism that defined the Christianity of our home. It was impressed upon me that to be a Christian, certain activities were prohibited: smoking, swearing, drunkenness, wearing provocative clothing and pre-marital sex were just a few. It’s not as if I viewed this as a list of virtuous behaviors, compliance was no problem. But these rules served as the strings attached to the promise of salvation. If I did participate in any of these behaviors, I probably was not a Christian or would probably lose my salvation if, by chance, I was one. I certainly don’t disagree that these are areas Christians should strive to avoid. But ours was not a positive Christianity that basked in knowing the blessing of salvation by grace through faith. The rules-based approach was not in response to God’s mercy, pursing the holiness of God as an act of worship. Ours was more of a negative Christianity, dare I say pharisaical, intended to give a perception of holiness in order to appear to others as the best of the best. This way life wasn’t just concerned with what the neighbors would think, it had everything to do with giving God reasons to accept us into his fold. Avoiding these behaviors was portrayed as our ticket to eternity.

Over the years, as I’ve come to understand what scripture teaches about salvation and what it means to honor God in the way we live, I look back at the Christianity of my childhood not with frustration or anger, but with a bit of sadness. The responsibility my mom had thrust upon her was not with the tools necessary for raising up children in the faith. A disciple needs to have been discipled—something I’m quite confident she never experienced. However, I believe she has also learned a great deal over the years and truly desires to know God beyond the self-imposed regulations thought required to attain salvation.

If you ask me today if I was brought up in a Christian home, I would say that while my upbringing may have been in the context of many churches and even some cults, there was very little about my experience that was truly biblical. Putting on the new self means I can put away the legalism of the past and clothe myself in obedience to Christ as an act of worship.

You may share this experience to some degree, continuing to struggle with the challenge of legalism. Following rules can serve as something of a security blanket—though ultimately only providing false security as we tend to forget our works without a heart inclined to God are like filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6). Our relationship with God is not about following a list of rules to attain salvation; this would render grace meaningless. Legalism is not Christ-centered. Legalism is always self-centered because the focus is not just about getting everything right, but believing in our capacity that we can get everything right. Trusting God for our salvation means that we know we are sinners and we need Jesus’ righteousness to compensate for the lack of our own.

The role of the church is not to enforce a list of unreachable goals that demand perfection from Christ followers. We aren’t to teach that if one stumbles in their spiritual journey they will lose the redemption secured for them through Christ. Ours is not to work for our salvation, an endeavor that causes us to ultimately reject the gift that it is. As the cliché goes, Christianity is not a list of rules, it’s a relationship with Jesus, one that begins with God’s call upon our lives to repent of sin and profess Jesus as Lord.

1. Equip yourself to equip others. If you are the women’s ministry leader in  your church or on a team, consider developing a strategy that allows you to recognize existing and emerging leaders in the congregation, women who will disciple other women. Duplicate yourself! You need to be making disciples–not just converts–and this means you need to be able to effectively communicate what scripture teaches us. Pursue opportunities to develop yourself as the thought leader God wants you to be in this area of ministry and you’ll discover opportunities to engage the minds of women of all ages.

2. Don’t be easily discouraged. If your women’s ministry is struggling in the transition to become one that is intentionally focused on women’s minds and lives, you might need to reconsider method. Events and gatherings that are Christ-centered can still be fun. Though the teapot has become a recognized symbol of some very shallow women’s ministry endeavors, it can prove to be a bridge to more teaching opportunities. Sometimes it is helpful to allow the relics of the past to help deliver the message women need now.

3.  Be in constant communication with your church leaders about not only the vision of the women’s ministry, but also its needs. The last thing our pastors need is women’s ministry leaders going rogue. But any ministry effectively serving the mission of the church is one that any pastor will support. Let your leaders know your logistical needs including meeting space, child care concerns, and resource recommendations. Don’t use materials without the knowledge of your church leaders. Not only are they responsible for what they teach on Sunday morning, they’re responsible for what you teach whether it’s Sunday morning or Tuesday night.

4. Who isn’t attending? As you are busy with Bible studies, teaching seminars, and other gatherings, you will get excited about who is attending–but take note of who isn’t there. This is an area of your ministry you need to be intentionally focused on. Sometimes absence has to do with childcare, scheduling, and other basic needs. But you need to ask and find out. Don’t neglect the area of your ministry that might take a bit more work–it might actually be the opportunity to grow some profound relationships with women who really want to know God. This is the heart of ministry.

Some of these limitations in knowledge are purposeful and the trinity serves as a great example. In scripture, various passages provide evidence of the three persons of the godhead. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. One God (Deut 6:4), yet three persons. And of course, this makes perfect sense, right? Well, not really. It’s a mystery how it all works, but it’s a mystery that God has decided to leave us with, a mystery we’re expected to embrace about a God we’re called to adore even when we don’t fully understand.

Unfortunately we have a habit of trying to resolve these mysteries. Modalists try to resolve the mystery of the trinity with a slight of hand: the three persons become three manifestations of one person. Isn’t that better? Even though it makes a mockery of scripture (was Jesus talking to himself at his baptism? Luke 3:22) at least now the trinity makes some sense. While a rationalized approach to reading scripture always makes us feel better, unfortunately this approach reduces the meaning of scripture to the human limitation of “sense.” In the end, it doesn’t make God more knowable and it risks his nature, his character, and his will. It may make “sense,” but it negates the authority of scripture as it is superseded by reason, limited as it is.

Often, the same thing is done with what scripture teaches about salvation. Acts 16:31 states, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” In Romans 10:9, Paul writes, “if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” Yet we often ask, what about the people who have never heard? What about those with geographical disadvantage? Weren’t they just not as lucky as we were, to be born in a culture where Christianity is an accepted part of society?

We just don’t stop—it goes a few steps further. Some reason from a presumption of innocence, that it’s not only unlucky for some to be born in a Muslim culture or an atheistic family, but its just not fair that God would deny “good people” salvation simply because they didn’t have the right beliefs. It’s not their fault they don’t believe, so why should they endure an eternity of separation from God?

Adherence to a soft inclusivism destroys the mission of the church and sacrifices the Gospel at the altar of reason. Soft inclusivism says that it is Jesus who ultimately saves, but it isn’t required for individuals to be able to name Jesus as their savior for them to avoid going to hell. No true follower of Jesus enjoys the truth of eternal separation from God, yet proponents of inclusivism give the impression that this is a matter of gloating.

We are called to make disciples, a task which begins with preaching the Gospel. Jesus’ words call us to act and to be urgent about it, not to make excuses for not going out into all the world, a consequence of any form of inclusivism. We aren’t to sit back and remain in awe over the narrative Jesus’ words are contained in, but to move beyond the narrative and act on what he taught. In Jesus’ words, we are called to teach “them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:20).

Knowing and loving God means embracing even the mysteries of who he is and how he acts. We haven’t got God all figured out because there are aspects of his nature and will that elude our sensibilities. Our motivations that result should not be to make him more knowable by changing the meaning of scripture through a rationalist approach, but to be gripped with a passion for those who do not yet know him. If we don’t like the implications for those who do not yet know God, our hearts ought to be moved to make him known. This is the task we’ve been called to, and the responsibility is on us to share the Good News. The command to share Christ is clear, no mystery there.