The Symphony of Scripture

N.T. Wright on how to read the Bible. 

"Why not just allow [the bible] to wash over you?"

Mister Rogers: A song to remind us of the good times.

Either/Or: Mood'y Bible Institute's Men's...I Mean, Pastors Conference | Part 3

This is Part 3 of 3 in a series which explores Moody Bible Institute's tradition of disallowing women to register for their annual Pastor's Conference, and the connections that story has to deeper issues of problematic either/or thinking in Western Evangelicalism. 

You can also read Part 1 of this series: Either/or Understanding of Scripture or Part 2: Either/or Understanding of Evangelical Feminism.

3) Either/Or Understanding of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: “Men are either masculine, powerful, and in charge or they are feminine, weak, and subject to the pseudo-leadership of women.”

Moody aside, this false dichotomy is subtly found in many of our churches and institutions. And while these places may not always claim to have chosen to believe only one side of this either/or, they unfortunately communicate otherwise.Yet, I have seen, again and again, that Christians who define their manhood primarily by power and control often work out that ideology through theological suppression (or exclusion) of women whose femininity can be seen as a threat to manhood itself.

It is my experience that Biblical manhood need not ultimately be exercised through control, power, and authority. Jesus’ journey to his crucifixion and his resurrection experience illustrates this perfectly. “Biblical Manhood” also need not be hierarchical, as if the only alternative to being subservient to one’s wife is to preemptively dominate her.

---

In the end, one can choose a high value of scripture, Christian orthodoxy, and Biblical womanhood and manhood while also choosing egalitarian hermeneutics, Evangelical feminism, and alternative understandings of manhood and womanhood. The “Egalitarianism vs. Complementarianism” debate need not be a battle of the antithetical opposites, but rather a recognition of the complexities behind a variety of biblically-based positions. In this specific case, a major representative of the wider Evangelical tradition has allowed an either/or posture to reinforce the binary thinking that plagues not only Evangelicalism in particular, but the Western world in general.

At first Moody’s response to Adam’s McLane’s Tweet (posted above) which read, “Praise God for other conferences #Heprovides” left me a bit frustrated. However, I am now left wondering if the author of that tweet was onto something. We should praise God for other Pastor Conferences that are welcoming of women and men who have dedicated their lives to sacrificial service in the church. And maybe that means—at least for the time being—we should also seek out those conferences for our further pastoral training and encouragement. In the meantime, maybe it would be more appropriate for Moody to call their gathering, “The Moody Pastoral Conference for Men.”

Want to read more? Check out Discovering Biblical Equality by Douglas Fee for issues of exegesis, hermeneutics, and church history. Or pick up Woman Caught in the Conflict by Rebecca Groothuis for info on Evangelical Feminism and the sociological side of gender equality. You can also read Part 1 of this series: Either/or Understanding of Scripture or Part 2: Either/or Understanding of Evangelical Feminism.  

-Michael L. Wiltshire

Either/Or: Mood'y Bible Institute's Men's...I Mean, Pastors Conference | Part 2

This is Part 2 of 3 in a series which explores Moody Bible Institute's tradition of disallowing women to register for their annual Pastor's Conference, and the connections that story has to deeper issues of problematic either/or thinking in Western Evangelicalism. You can also read Part 1 of this series: Either/or Understanding of Scripture.

2) Either/or Understanding of Evangelical Feminism: “Either one must embrace feminism and therefore also liberalism, relativism, and humanism or one must embrace traditionalism and therefore also masculine-shaped morality, gender hierarchy, and orthodoxy.”

This false either/or dichotomy is prominent among many Evangelicals. Overreaction to this idea even drives many churches to adopt an ideological preference for an ethos of masculinity. Some even take this to the extreme and teach that any church that is not defined by masculinity is by necessity defined by a liberal femininity—and a feminine church is not only unbiblical and unorthodox—it is sinful. On the other hand, some folks remove themselves from Evangelicalism altogether as they fear that they are not welcomed at the table.

From my studies, however, I find that any substantial conflict between Evangelical feminism and traditionalist masculinity to be mostly avoidable. Evangelical feminism must be not totally dismissed as the liberal feminism that arose at the turn of the century; rather it should be seen as a movement of fully Evangelical men and women who appreciate gender distinctiveness, but see the complementary roles of the men and women to be exercised best when hierarchy is non-existent (or perhaps better stated, to be episodically available to both women and man). It seems that history also tells us that it is possible to have, in the words of Richard Mouw, “A thoroughly evangelical feminism that is grounded in a deep commitment to the truth of God’s Word.” This has been evidenced by the writings of Mouw, Rebecca Groothuis, Stanley Grenz, William Webb, and Douglas Fee. Even early Church fathers like Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine and John Calvin has some interesting things to say about the genderless and/or feminine nature of God (You can read more about this on Scott McKight’s blog). As discussed above, Moody’s own institutional history reflects a school that, while never identifying as “feminist”, still supported those who owned that label. 
For the final approach to binary thinking on this topic, come back tomorrow for part 3 of this series. We will follow up with a final problematic either/or dichotomy and hopefully offer a way forward. 

Want to read more? Check out Discovering Biblical Equality by Douglas Fee for issues of exegesis, hermeneutics, and church history. Or pick up Woman Caught in the Conflict by Rebecca Groothuis for info on Evangelical Feminism and the sociological side of gender equality. You can also read Part 1 of this series: Either/or Understanding of Scripture by clicking here. 

-Michael L. Wiltshire

Either/Or: Mood'y Bible Institute's Men's...I Mean, Pastors Conference | Part 1

A few weeks ago, Moody Bible Institute’s Pastor’sConference took place and it drew in some 1,000 pastors in attendance. The conference featured exclusively male speakers, bands…and as usual, participants. Well almost anyway. The conference was not open for women to register—though “Women are allowed to attend General Sessions…with their husbands.” This conference, according to the school, is not a men’s conference per se but rather a place where Evangelical church leaders may go to equip, refocus, and refresh. Blogger and Moody graduate, Adam McLane’s twitter conversation with the school reveals as much:

 

Moody Conferences Twitter conversation with MBI graduate Adam McLane

For those of us who might participate in conferences such as Moody’s, this aspect of their operation might call for some careful consideration. Why would Moody not allow women to register for general sessions? And what about those female Moody graduates who go on to serve in pastoral roles and wish to continue benefiting from their alma mater? Is this decision part of a larger trend in Evangelicalism, or just adherence to a statement of belief?  

We will explore these questions and more in the next three posts. We begin with a brief  introduction, before to our first post - "The Either/Or Reading of Scripture."

First, a quick history lesson about Moody Bible Institute (MBI) and its relationship to supporting women in pastoral ministry. The school was initiated under the leadership of a woman named Emma Dryer in 1883; she would act as essentially the first dean of the school. The institute would be one of the first schools in the state to admit women. According to Janette Hassey in Discovering BiblicalEquality (pgs.39-58), beginning in 1889, Moody soon led all early Bible institutes in training women for pastoral ministry as its graduates openly served as pastors, preachers, and teachers. This was evidenced in 1927 as Moody’s publication, Alumni News, proudly told the fascinating account of Mable Thomas, a 1913 graduate, who served as a pastor in Kansas. In 1929, the school’s official publication, Moody Monthly, listed Lottie Sheidler as the first person to ever graduate from the pastor’s course. Then there is the fact that just before the turn of the century, D.L Moody forged an alliance with Frances Willard—one of America’s foremost pioneers for gender equality in the public and in the pulpit. While MBI may have never explicitly enforced women in pastoral roles, Hassey rightly concludes that the “implicit endorsement of women in those authoritative roles for over forty years cannot be denied.” Though some of these facts may seem less than “radical” remember that most of these events took place before women were even allowed to vote.

So, why would Moody—an institute which once stood-out as radically in support of women in the pastorate—decided to continue excluding them from pastoral conferences? In this post the the 2 that will follow, I think are a few causal reasons to explore. Essentially, I see Moody’s decision to be, at least in part, due to the influence of either/or thinking in areas where a both/and posture could be more appropriate. While this tendency is much more widespread than MBI, using the example of Moody’s Pastors Conference as a reference may help the trend become more visible. When it comes to either/or thinking in gender discussions, binary thought tends to surface in three prominent ways - the first of which we will begin with:

1) Either/Or Reading of Scripture: “Scripture is either complementarian or egalitarian in its instruction of church leadership.”

Both sides of the gender debate fall prey to this line of thinking, yet in choosing to acknowledge only one reading often leads to poor hermeneutics which oversimplifies the complexity of gender within the scriptures. While I (Michael Wiltshire) myself may be an Egalitarian, I have studied the text enough to know that a complementarian reading is not absent from the text. Though I think this reading is less in tune to the entirety of Scripture, for me to say it is not derivable from the text is to be exegetically irresponsible. It is surprising then, that Moody would communicate through their tradition of male-only registries that their conference reflects on only one particular reading of scripture when it comes to the office of pastor.

For the next two approaches to binary thinking on this topic come back and visit for posts 2 & 3.  We will follow up with a few more of these problematic either/or dichotomies and hopefully offer a way forward.

- Michael Wiltshire      

Want to read more? Check out Discovering Biblical Equality by Douglas Fee for issues of exegesis, hermeneutics, and church history. Or pick up Woman Caught in the Conflict by Rebecca Groothuis for info on Evangelical Feminism and the sociological side of gender equality.

Either/Or: A Mulatto Assault on Totalism

“What are you,” they asked me, a young, hazel eyed, coffee skinned boy.

“Well,” I replied, “my mother is German-Irish (white) and my father is African-American (black).”

They stared at me blankly; it was obvious my ethnicity had caught them off guard. As I attempted to subdue the frustration that began to betray itself in my eyes, the ensuing question would be one that I would continue to answer throughout my entire life: “Well which one (ethnicity) are you, black or white?” This question presented itself in many different ways throughout the years but my answer to the question never changed: “I am both.” However, I have recently discovered a new but similar way to answer this question…

I never thought of this assertion as defiant or malevolent so you can imagine my confusion when the person I was speaking with became visibly agitated. Often times this person (black or white) would (directly or indirectly) attempt to convince me that the world would never affirm my claim to “bothness” and I should therefore choose one or the other.

In his book RedeemingMulatto, Brian Bantum addresses this tragic phenomenon from a theological perspective. Bantum suggests through his careful and astute interaction with philosophy, history, literature and theology that the mulatto/a body poses a problem to culture because it rejects a mentality of totalism (pg. 20). Bantum asserts that mulatto/a bodies disrupt the religious and racial ideologies of “purity” insofar as they demonstrate a divergence in “racial performance” (pg. 28-29). These mulatto/a (also read inter-racial) bodies reject the traditional American boundaries of racial purity (whiteness) by existing/claiming numerous ethnicities. Bantum acknowledges that this is often to the chagrin of white counterparts who have deified and commidified whiteness over all other pigmentations (pg. 32-33, 54). Therefore, the mulatto/a existence can be viewed as a threat to racial structures because it rejects Western ethnic constructs and demonstrates an impossible possibility: reconciliation amongst the transgressor (whites) and the transgressed (blacks/other ethnic peoples) (pg. 33, 39).

In an attempt to offer an alternative articulation of race and theology, Bantum provocatively suggests that Christ was mulatto/a in the sense that he exists in utter difference (God/Man Phil. 2:6-7) unified to a single, hybrid body (pg. 99, 108). Christ is neither/nor—but. Christ transforms notions of purity and totalism by demonstrating, through his life, an impossible possibility (Luke 1:43-56): the enjoining of the Creator and the creature. Through the incarnation, Christ invites his followers to reject the dichotomies of either/or and embrace the possibilities of neither/nor—but. Through baptism, discipleship, prayer and a commitment to an ecclesial community, the Christian becomes incorporated into Christ’s mulattic body which embraces a multiplicity of tongues (Acts 2:1-12; 15:1-35; Gal 3:28) (pg. 190). “Christ gives birth to mixed race children whose very presence and whose lives declare a different possibility” (pg. 120). I share Bantum’s conviction that if one truly desires to live into the body of Christ, they will embrace their foreign looking brother or sister, and reject the totalizing racial logic that has predominated Western culture (pg. 142, 148-149).

“Well which one are you, black or white,” they ask me, a young, hazel eyed, coffee skinned boy.

“Well,” I reply, “I am neither/nor—but.”

By Josiah R. Daniels

Dedicated to Aria and Sarkis Smith

Rob Bell & The Gospel Coalition: Male or no Male Prostitutes?

Recently Rob Bell was interviewed along with a fellow name Andrew Wilson.  The topic came to homosexuality and then got stuck there.  What followed was what some may call a game of cat and mouse while others might say it turned into a dia...monologue of questions.  Gospel Coalition writer, Jared C. Wilson didn't waste time in posting a piece on the very topic brought up in the interview - is Paul referring to Cultic homosexual prostitutes when referring to homosexuality in the New Testament?



Jared's opener starts like this...

You have likely heard the arguments, becoming more and more common among progressive Christians and others seeking to make same-sex romantic relationships compatible with the orthodox faith. It goes something like this: “Paul and the other NT writers were not condemning committed, consensual, monogamous” — to limit the typical qualifiers to just three — “homosexual relationships. The way the church has read these texts for 2,000 years is eisogesis. They are references to temple prostitution, pedophilia, or rape.”

Are they on to something? Have we had it wrong for so long?

Wilson goes on to cite numerous scholars (Robert A.J. Gagnon in particular) who discount this progressive view and support the view that Paul's writings were condemning homosexuality as a lifestyle regardless of contextual concerns that might render a different reading.

Jared C. Wilson and Rob Bell are informed with a slough of scholarship that may or not be one-sided as it is reported.  Which side seems to have the best case? 

What about 2000 years of interpretive history that stands against Rob's point of view?  

Is it ever ok for present day interpreters of Scripture to disagree with the interpretive history of the church? 

Does the evidence that Jared presents settle the score for anyone wavering on this topic? What about the evidence that Rob points to?

"Socialism vs. Redistribution: A response to Art Lindsley and The Gospel Coalition | Part 2"

“...it is impossible to show that these passages teach socialism...” - Art Lindsley

This is part two of a post initiated by Josiah Daniels in response to Art Lindsley’s article for TheGospel Coalition. You may read Josiah’s initial post, here. Part 2 of Socialism vs. Redistribution will focus in on the logical complexities behind Lindsley’s article, and offer insights into how his project could more complete by addressing a few issues. 

Lindsley’s post on The Gospel Coalition’s website starts off by claiming that Acts 2-5 is not an example of true communal sharing because the text portrays “a spirit of communal sharing rather than an actual commune.” He then bases that point on the fact that Acts 2:43-47 is marked by “imperfect tense verbs whereas one normally expects aorists ‘[once-and-for-all actions]’ in historical narrative.” In sum, Lindsley’s logic assumes the following: “‘imperfect verbs’ in the text do not explicitly connote full communal sharing --> therefore, no full communal sharing took place.

It is my contention that this grammatical argument is actually an argument from silence (i.e. a conclusion drawn from the absence of something). Under this logic, an opposite conclusion could be drawn: “Acts 2:43-47 does not say that the events were partially communal and then ended once giving became inconvenient --> therefore, it was a fully socialistic commune.”

The article Does the Bible Command Socialism? is also missing something quite important. It doesn't acknowledge necessary distinctions that should arise in this discussion. For example, one of Lindsley’s central arguments is: giving in Acts was voluntary --> therefore, there could not possibly be biblical basis for any sort of socialism (i.e. Lindsley last ph.).

While the giving in Acts may have been voluntary, it was certainly Spirit-driven (Acts 4:23-31), and under the direction of the Apostles (Acts 4:35, 37; 5:2). This sort of giving may not perfectly mirror Marxist socialism, yet it does not seem to be overtly antithetical. In order to avoid the sweeping statement, “The events were voluntary --> therefore Acts is anti-Marxist” Lindsley needed to answer these questions separately before drawing a conclusion: 1) “Were these Christians practicing any sort of socialism?” 2) “Does the overall sweep of the bible (e.g. Israel’s narrative history) give a basis for communal sharing that resembles socialism?” and then finally, 3) “Does Acts encourage the Christian community to favor socialistic tendencies? Further, and perhaps more important, the author also needed to provide a much needed distinction between command, encourage, and describe when it comes to the question of socialistic giving in Acts. 

Lindsley’s article concludes: “The fact that some Christians ‘shared all things’ does not constitute a command that all Christians should follow their example, because it is not clearly taught in passages of Scripture elsewhere.”

Again, this conclusion is dependent on the assumptions that 1) lack of perfect verbs equates partial communal sharing, and 2) voluntary giving disqualifies (pre)socialistic practices. Yet, there is more to this statement than it may initially seem. I wonder how this argument might interact with relevant thematic elements of Israel’s ongoing narrative where communal giving is customary (e.g. the year of Jubilee; Deut. 23:19; Lev. 25:35-37); not to mention the many NT passages where not only the “love of money” is warned against, but personal wealth is itself explicitly condemned (Matt. 5, 6:24; Lk. 12:15; 1 Tim. 6:6-10, James 5:1; 1 Jn. 3:17).

It seems that Lindsley’s article has initiated what all good scholarship wishes to generate—a need for more research. In these past two posts, we have sought to challenge assumptions and ask questions which are begging to be explored. My personal contention in this post is not critique for the sake of any particular political ideology; but rather to humbly suggest that when it comes to (disproving)socialism/redistribution in the Acts, there is more work to be done. 

-Michael L. Wiltshire

Interested in reading more? 

Check out Nathan Smith’s Post: Jesus Feeding 5000 = Socialism?

Richard Twiss & Randy Woodley on the Excluded Middle that brings Shalom

Socialism vs. Redistribution: A Response to Art Lindsley & The Gospel Coalition - Part 1

We are preparing to do a two-part series that briefly interacts with Socialism and the Bible. Recently Art Lindsley wrote a piece for The Gospel Coalition that criticizes socialist interpretations of the Bible (specifically Acts 2-5). Says Lindsley, "Certainly, the communal sharing illustrated in Acts 2-5 was a beautiful picture of generosity and love. But it is impossible to show that these passages teach socialism given their temporary, voluntary, and strictly narrative nature." It is our mission to critique, interact and offer an alternative understanding to Lindsley's position. We appreciate feed back and interaction from our readers! Be sure to contact us with your opinions and questions.


“Redistribution of material goods” is often associated with socialism. However, I would like to suggest that “redistribution of material goods” is a part of becoming and being a Christian who practices Shalom (the peace/justice of YHWH). The question that Dr. Lindsley proposes (Does the bible command/teach/encourage socialism?) is one that seems to be popular among those who wish to dismiss any form of recompense for those who have been socially marginalized. The question that needs to be addressed is, “Does the bible teach redistribution?”

Being someone who places the materially poor at the top of the Bible’s primary concerns, I read Acts (and the entire bible for that matter) much differently than Lindsley. It is in my view that the Biblical narrative is primarily concerned with Shalom which translates to spiritual, financial and political liberation for the destitute and forgotten (Lk 6:20-25).

Ethicist and theologian Richard B. Hays argues in Moral Vision of the New Testament that the Luke-Acts narrative demands that Christians are to prophetically envision a just and peaceful society that promotes redistribution. Unlike Lindsley, Hays suggests that the giving of material possessions in Luke-Acts symbolizes one’s response towards God (Lk 18:18-30; 19:1-10). While the “rich young ruler” refuses Christ’s invitation of redistribution, Zacchaeus accepts. 

Both cases demonstrate Christ’s Kingdom politics of necessary redistribution (pg. 123-135). However, Lindsley is skeptical of theological application via narrative passages and suggests that Scripture must be interpreted in relation to the “didactic or teaching portions.” 

Ross and Gloria Kinsler in their book The Biblical Jubilee assert that redistribution is synonymous with the Christian tradition. While Lindsley is convinced that communal sharing is the exception and not the norm, the Kinsler’s cite 2 Corinthians 8-9 as a text where Paul exhorts the church of Corinthians to share their possessions with the poorer Macedonian church so that there will not be a “needy persons among them” (Ex 16:16-18; Deut 15:4; 2 Cor. 8:15) (pg. 146-147). 

Paul seems to be deeply committed to redistribution as it is recorded in Acts 11:29 that the believers in Antioch were asked to send supplies to Judea to combat a famine. Furthermore, the early (c. 50 AD) apostolic teaching known as the Didache has an extremely negative view of wealth while conversely admonishing believers to redistribute their possessions and give to whoever begs (see ch. 1, 4, 5, 11).

I think it would behoove Lindsley to acknowledge that he is coming from a particular interpretive tradition (as a White-Anglo-Saxon-Protestant [WASP] Lindsley finds himself to be a member of the dominant tradition) thus influencing his reading of this (and other) text(s). I will not argue that the Acts ecclesiology is possibly descriptive instead of prescriptive, but I would argue that The Kingdom of God is biased towards the widow (Lk 21:1-4), orphan/children (Mt 19:14), foreigner (Jn 4) and the poor (Mt 25). 

How that plays out politically (capitalism vs. socialism, ect) depends on one's philosophy. But the key for the Christian is to embrace The Kingdom of God which transcends traditional political constituencies and embraces redistribution of material goods.

-Josiah R. Daniels

Re-Launch & Introductions

Welcome to Restoring Pangea, the blog that blogs hard.  Do you want to hear about evangelical feminism, political theology, hopefully hopeful things, funny stories about the things follower of Jesus do, the story that's hopefully behind the story, among many other things?  This will be a place to get 'er done.  After blogging for about 7 years on my own, I am now being joined by two good friends, Michael Wiltshire and Josiah Daniels.

Michael Wiltshire is earning his MDiv at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, CA. His main interests are in New Testament studies, exegesis, gender equality, and the relationship between identity and spirituality. Michael has spent five years working in youth ministry. Authors he is currently reading include Henri Nouwen, Rebecca Groothuis, Scot McKnight, Esther Meek, Walter Brueggemann, Roger Olsen, and Richard Rohr.

Josiah Daniels is a 22 year old seminarian attending Northern Seminary near Chicago who has an obsession with theology and politics and how they coalesce. He loves to write, read and put to practice what he has been studying. Josiah comes from a bi-racial household where his parents taught him to embrace cultural diversity and fight for people who feel left out due to the color of their skin. He hopes to eventually pursue a doctorate in some form of public theology. Mr. Daniel's two biggest heroes (besides his parents) are Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

You will not be disappointed so be sure to come back and visit. Michael and Josiah will be hanging out here for a year to process their first year of Seminary and introduce you to their thoughts.  All comments are welcome. See you soon.

Non-Violent Atonement by Michael Hardin: Parts 1 & 2

Leaders And The Names We Call Them

Someone recently let me know that they wouldn't be commenting on my facebook posts anymore that have to do with theology, Christian leaders, etc. because they were frustrated with how I was speaking poorly of Christian brothers, etc. - particularly those in leadership. It got me thinking more about how the followers of Jesus are to approach Christian famous people who have been given the responsibility to lead in churches or ministries.  If that leader has said things or does things that undermines the message of Christ, the Gospel, the church universal, or are just plain mean - what are we to do? We can,

1. Remain quiet and stay out of the fray.

2. Speak up and say something to defend or criticize that leader.

3. Try to redirect our energy towards more constructive activities.

4. Create a better way of doing things and then do them. 

I'm sure there are multiple ways to respond, but one response that usually gets a bad rep is criticism.  Criticizing a leader, or even going further and calling them names that identify what we don't like about their actions, does take center stage a lot.  Sometimes we satirize their actions (Simpsons) in order to playfully but substantively critique them.  Sometimes we outright say what they have done wrong.  There are multiple ways that we do this indirectly or directly, but nonetheless, it happens, and yet doing so usually receives its own criticism - the critique that we shouldn't malign our brother and sisters (especially leaders) publicly, even if the criticism is true. I wonder...

To satirize is a legitimate form of subversive non-violent resistance, and might I say one of the best ways to do so. Non-violent resistance is a virtuous action that people who follow Jesus are called to participate in when necessary. Power, when it is abused, calls for action to restore the abuser to proper stewardship of their power. If they continue to abuse that power and/or influence and ignore the warnings, then they are to be called to account and probably have their power taken from them. 

My tradition (evangelical/baptist) never taught me this. They taught me the opposite - unquestioned loyalty to authority, ordained leaders, men whom "God has placed in leadership," etc. What if these people have abused their power and have little to no desire to change?  We may need to satirize their actions or even go so far as to name call those who are unrelenting in their abuse of power because of their insistence in avoiding the responsibility for wrongs committed.

Name-calling - isn't that juvenile? Yet Jesus's example with name-calling calls out to us. Those who were "hard of heart" were the religious leaders who wouldn't respond when given the chance to correct their actions and they did so on multiple occasions.  On top of that, they portrayed themselves as the ones who were upholding morality and were spokesmen for God himself.  They even went so far as to protect their positional leadership by discussing how they could lie to keep it, an historic good ole boys club.  Sadly, religious leaders today struggle with the exact same dynamics.

Leadership Rule #4 - One has to assume that leaders will and do lie to cover up their mistakes and/or unethical decisions. It is one of the guarantees of stewarding power over other people - we will be tempted to cover up the wrongs we commit due to insecurities, legitimate mistakes, carelessness, selfishness, etc. That temptation is eventual and incessant - as a leader, it will never go away. Here is the syllogism to prove my point:

1. A person who is entrusted with power will be tempted to abuse that power by making either mistakes and/or unethical decisions.

2. Humans make mistakes and unethical decisions

3. Therefore, a person who is entrusted with power will abuse the power by making mistakes and/or unethical decisions.

All forms of leadership are not exempt from this syllogism, including Christians in leadership, but what they do with it is what matters. Leaders need to get over the fact that they are going to screw up or be responsible for someone else's screw up. I have found that in Christian communities, the leadership tends to respond with these three options,

1. Intents vs Actions: As leaders, we tend to appeal to our innocent and initial intents and thoughts regardless of what our actions conveyed.  Too many leaders appeal to this and forget that the road to destructive leadership is paved with our good intentions.  

Solution - stop telling people what our intentions were and deal with the implications of our actions. Posture change - accept that our lack of intention is as much a problem as is ill intent.

2. Benevolence vs. Justice: As leaders, when we are faced with the opportunity to pursue justice, even at our own expense, we are many times tempted to overlook justice and replace it with benevolence.  Benevolence that doubles for justice is actually form of violence.  To ignore the wrong done and then seek repair through benevolence only compounds the painful implications of the injustice and may cause more pain than the initial action.  To ignore injustice is to claim that we cannot see the hurt it causes and thus cannot see the people enduring the hurt - which ultimately means that the part of them that hurts doesn't exist.  When we replace reconciliatory justice with benevolence, we are avoiding either complicit or implicit guilt by sugar-coating that guilt with what looks like a virtuous response - which in the end is no virtue at all. 

Solution - avoid the inclination to be benevolent as a first response to a cry for justice. 

Posture change - seek first the kingdom of God and let benevolence follow as an implication, not a solution.

3. "Soft" truths vs. Honesty:  Many times, a leader makes a bad decision and when the need to fess up arises, the leader's power over other people gives that leader options other than bearing the responsibility themselves.  Passing the buck down to the most vulnerable and least leveraged is a time honored method of maintaining continuity in positional leadership and all leaders are tempted to do so.  We have all seen it happen either to us, to someone else or to the someone(s) that we did it to. It is always tempting to use our positional power to escape the vacuum of complicity once a mistake or unethical decision is made.  At the same time, we don't want to be seen as outrightly negligent, so we take some responsibility, but just enough to maintain our innocence nonetheless. 

Solution - practice the discipline of confession by admitting we are wrong even if at times we are not.  Posture change - look at people in the eye when you are tempted to lie to them or about them.

Back to name calling.  People in power who persistently pursue soft truths, benevolence and good intentions as their path to responsibility don't deserve name-calling, but instead they need name-calling, among other things.  This is to call them back to their responsibility to reconciliation that is honest, just and respectful of their actions, not their intents. Ultimately they are not only showing respect to the people wronged but also to themselves

Jesus seemed to know that hard hearts needed a heavy hand at times and that soft hearts only needed a gentle word at other times. Because we are prone to struggle with doing the opposite of what Jesus did, we need disciplines that will form us otherwise.  In review, here are a few option outlined previously

Solution   - Stop telling people what our intentions were and deal with the implications of our actions. Posture Change -  Accept that our lack of intent can equal ill intent.  

Solution - Avoid the inclination to be benevolent as a first response to a cry for justice. 

Posture Change - Seek first the Kingdom of God and let benevolence follow as an implication, not a solution.  

Solution - Practice the discipline of confession by admitting we are wrong even if at times we are not.  Posture Change - look at people in the eye when you are tempted to lie to them or about them.  

Final Solution - If none of this works, be prepared to be called names and learn to accept the titles.