Dale Fincher - Latest Comments

Re: What Exactly is "Church"?

Jason Seagle — Fri, 01 Jan 2016 16:24:03 -0000

our church seems to be on life support.... It seems very difficult trying to figure out whats going on. Why we are diminishing in numbers and why we can not keep our visitors. I have read Charles Shwartz "Natural Church Development" and this is where we are trying to take our church. But it seems with a congregation that averages 50 members with only around 20 "devoted", our task appears daunting at best. We have a body trying to run a marathon that seems to be legless. Any suggestions?

Re: A Very Serious Look at Reductive Science

australian essay writers — Sun, 08 Mar 2015 07:31:39 -0000

Well, this is a very good topic that needs to be acquired by a student who love science and wanted to learn deeper on it especially if they can discover something that is helpful on their part.

Re: What are the biblical roles of husbands and wives?

Dale Fincher — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 22:54:10 -0000

I'm amazed how silly it sounds the more I hear it. People are just not thinking clearly about this issue. If the wife needs the husband to sanctify her then 1) women MUST get married to be holy and 2) Jesus is insufficient (especially, as you pointed out, the passage already says Jesus did the washing!).

Thanks for pointing out that "spiritual head" is an interpretation. It may even been worse than the accusations leveled at those "evangelical feminists" for making the scripture say what the "plain meaning" does not.

Re: What are the biblical roles of husbands and wives?

Marg Mowczko — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 19:56:28 -0000

Whoa! I can't believe that he said it is the husband's role to sanctify his bride and make her presentable before Christ. Umm . . . That's Jesus' role. Jesus is the sanctifier and he presents the Church to himself. "That he might present to himself the church in all her glory" is the climax of the chiasm in Eph 5:22-35. This passage is firstly about Jesus and the Church. This man has got it the other way around.
He also says that one person cannot assume all the responsibility. Doesn't a leader accept all the responsibility? (Not sure what he was getting at with that comment.) He always links the word "spiritual" with "head". Ephesians 5 doesn't say "spiritual head". That is an interpretation. And to say that "head" has the metaphorical meaning of "leader", as it does in English, is simplistic and, I believe, not accurate.The idea that the husband is the final arbiter in difficult decisions has no biblical basis whatsoever. The only biblical precedent I can find for decision-making in marriage is in 1 Cor 7:5 where it speaks about husbands and wives making a mutual decision.

Re: The Theology of Spiritual Abuse in Christianity Today

Dale Fincher — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 12:34:23 -0000

Thanks, Katherine! I'm glad it was helpful. Come follow us at www.soulation.org, as abuse, especially as it relates to bad theology of love and gender, is discussed often.

Re: The Theology of Spiritual Abuse in Christianity Today

Katherine Gunn — Mon, 19 Sep 2011 18:52:25 -0000

Man, this describes the atmosphere and culture I grew up in - one that is a breeding ground for all kinds of abuse. Thanks for this concise and insightful analysis. I will be sharing it with friends.

Re: The Theology of Spiritual Abuse in Christianity Today

rachwolf — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 07:36:47 -0000

Sorry, I can't find it. I can't even find the search box. But I did see your
excellent and really helpful post (that I must have missed - or maybe
skimmed quickly; I think it said 5 days ago) in which you define the various
forms of epistomology that relate to religious views. I found this
exceedingly helpful and explanatory of many things I have experienced. A
real Wow for me.

Re: The Theology of Spiritual Abuse in Christianity Today

Dale Fincher — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 00:54:45 -0000

See my reply to Deb I just posted... search the page for "foundationalism" and you'll find it.

~dale
________________
Dale Fincher
{soulation.org}

Re: The Theology of Spiritual Abuse in Christianity Today

Dale Fincher — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 00:52:20 -0000

Thanks, Bob.

Re: The Theology of Spiritual Abuse in Christianity Today

Bob Pratico — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 13:04:16 -0000

Outstanding article. Thank you.

Re: The Theology of Spiritual Abuse in Christianity Today

rachwolf — Sun, 11 Apr 2010 22:01:57 -0000

these sound good. I read How the Irish Saved Civilization by Cahill and
liked that.

Re: The Theology of Spiritual Abuse in Christianity Today

debjs — Sun, 11 Apr 2010 21:22:43 -0000

I just remembered that I have two "easy-read" books sitting on my shelf that I should bump up the list: The Gifts of the Jews by Thomas Cahill and Life as Creation: A Jewish Way of Thinking About the World by Shalom Freedman.

Re: What Exactly is "Church"?

sylvialazo — Sun, 11 Apr 2010 19:16:01 -0000

The things I notice about the last church we were attending are:
You are"loved on" if you are in a particular "ministry". When you step down or stop, no matter what your reason, you are no longer spoken to. I thought it was my imagination for several months...began to hear the same thing from other ppl..
I also notice that as long as you are a part of the "Worship" team, or a part of the "Youth-ages 7th grade thru 30yrs old....you are accepted, praised, used, spoken to and included in all their stuff....If you're older than that, UNLESS you are involved in the way they like you to be involved, you are once again, ignored. When I say ignored, I mean without exaggeration, the same ppl who once spoke to you and hugged and "loved on" you, now look the other way or look at you but say absolutely nothing to you when they see you. If you are a child, you are loved on as long as you come to their church, which is touted as THE movement that God is using to win their city, as tho no one else in that city is doing squat for God.
I noticed that unless you pray loud, shout and dance LIKE THEY DO, and "come up to the front " for worship, you are treated as not as good as those who do ....right down to the verbal correction or "admonition" from the pulpit to the general "those of you who don't"....
we two are tired of being chewed on , or as they put it, cut on.....We believe God is turning the hearts of the fathers and sons to each other, and we're happy about that. We DONT believe that that is ALL He is doing, nor do we believe that a father in order to be a true father, has to belong to THEIR particular movement, or act like they do. Nor do they need to always be correcting their 'sons'.
I notice te talk of the people is becoming more and more what their 'church movement' is doing, and less and less of what God is doing. I'm not sure they realize how they sound.
I have several of the ppl on my friends list, and they used to pop up to chat with me. Since we stepped back from the 'ministry' for very good reason (I had to work, for 1) none of them talk to me anymore at all. None of them answer when I text or msg them.

Re: The Theology of Spiritual Abuse in Christianity Today

debjs — Sat, 10 Apr 2010 17:13:06 -0000

Hi Rach,

The stuff I'm thinking of would be next to impossible to misinterpret, although there always are the grey areas too where folks seem really arrogant but might just come off that way. But I'm not focused on those grey experiences. I've sort of debated what experiences to share and have decided I'm not comfortable sharing a whole lot much more specifically. The healthier groups I've found happen to not be Messianic but to have strong hearts/leanings that way--for instance, Don Finto's church which is not Messianic and celebrates all the traditional ways but also weaves in Jewish thinking and holidays (drinks from multiple streams) or some friends in Jerusalem who are very active in both the Jewish and Arab communities and would actually disagree w/ most Messianics on a lot of things.

I've been thinking a lot the last couple of days about one of the healthier ministries I know of with an explicit Messianic basis and ministry; they travel and bring this message to the churches, hosting excellent conferences. The thing that sometimes makes me feel uncomfortable even with them is (a) the pressure I think is there to adopt this as the primary theme of one's life when I feel called to a broader swath of church that might not ever get this piece (and toward whom I don't think it is always or ever to be my MAIN message) and (b) the fact that I personally know the guy who they sometimes refer to as "the" rabbi or "their" rabbi--a teacher in a major metropolitan area in the northeast. He is a nice guy and used to frequently visit a church that I used to visit. He likes worshipping w/ the "regular" Church too although he is deeply devoted to the Messianic movement and schooled in all sorts of philosophy and theology that I've never even heard of. Anyhow, I also (a) know some of his long time friends who had to separate from him out of the strength of his legalism, something that I think he has since gotten more balance on but is still the predilection, and more strikingly, (b) I was in a relatively recent conversation with him and others where he was enthusiastically affirming that all portions of the church which do not become Messianic in their worship (and by this, it was an all-out change in church patterns) will become apostate if they aren't already. The conversation turned detailed and apocalyptic with this theme repeatedly affirmed. Having already come across many leaders in the movement who are quite a good deal less balanced and less ready to receive diverse fellowship w/ patience than he, when I learn that even he holds these ideas, I start to wonder if this is the hidden gist of even those "healthy" variations on Messianism. I'm NOT saying it is. It has just made me really uncomfortable.

The day this conversation started w/ you guys, a rabbi had tried to add me as a friend on FB. I've heard of his ministry before--one in another major metropolitan area. He asked me to read his notes before adding me as a friend b/c he didn't want people who wouldn't like his ideas. Initially there were some good thoughts mixed in with pink flags. Then we got into the red flags of the necessity and hows of circumcision, eating kosher, etc. etc. And that, I have come across a LOT. Some are more gracious and willing to let you have a different conviction than others. Typically I've found them unwilling, and w/ him it was unwillingness.

These examples are really from the "nice" side of my experiences. I have some real head-turners (or should I say, stomach-turners).

Dunno why I've had such weird experiences if the movement is overall healthy, but I have. I also have known folks who try to link all different family lines (anglo-saxons, etc.) to Israel to declare they are Jewish. I know that many times these facts were hidden b/c of anti-semitism. But some of it really fails to make sense and seems to be based in folks needs to feel extra-special before God.

Thank you for the theology recommendations. They cannot be "soon" reads, but I will keep these names in mind! I have read Don Finto's less heady stuff and quite a few articles. I am intrigued to see a UMC theologian (Solen) embracing Messianism. I really like that b/c (a) I think my private theology is fairly Methodist, and (b) that is outside of the circles where I usually find Messianism most active... might give me a bit of distance from all of my experiences and give me clues on how to integrate this healthily.

I really feel like this has to be an attack of Satan against Jews to make so much of this movement go off--b/c if others don't feel they can fellowship with these movements w/o becoming JUST like them or if they see major theological errors, it is just going to hinder their heart for His original people and His plans for them.

Thanks.

Re: The Theology of Spiritual Abuse in Christianity Today

rachwolf — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 17:03:18 -0000

Deb, I'm wondering whom you know in the Messianic movement. My guess is you are misinterpreting some of what you experience, though there are a lot of weird groups who have glommed onto the "Messianic" label, and even a lot of varied groups within the movement.

In any case I don;t really know what "the impassibility question" is. I have not really studied much standard Christian theology and don't necessarily intend to. I like Wyschogrod (a Jewish theologian). I think he has some important and original insights. I like Richard Bauckham (Jesus and the God of Israel), Oskar Skarsaune (In the Shadow of the Temple) and some others. Kendall Soulen's book The God of Israel and Christian Theology is seminal. If you've studied academic theology you may like it. It's a dense read, but highly worthwhile.

If Dale knows you personally, maybe he would have an idea of which book it may be good for you to look into. I am not sure where you should start.

Re: The Theology of Spiritual Abuse in Christianity Today

debjs — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 13:18:23 -0000

That should say philosophy textbook above, btw. I've read a mess of theology, but that is another story. Btw, I think "foundationalism" also came up in a book of theology I read last year on how we experience revelation from God.

I read the Wyschogrod article last night and enjoyed it.

Only this year did I start publically questioning God's impassiblity, although I didn't really buy it when I first heard of it over a decade ago and became more and more established in my freedom to privately question it in recent years. Especially after reading Greek philosophy, I now imagine it is a hold-over of Greek thought more than anything and have been so bold as to suggest this to others who haven't spent time w/ philosophy or theology. I did not know I had company! That is, I did not realize until very recently that there are other evangelicals saying so (and not just open theists, which I am decidedly not... I sort of see open theism as an over-reaction to the error of impassibility). Before I had figured that somehow I just didn't have the training to understand it. The good principle that comes of this emphasis on impassibility is His essential unity, integration, cohesion, and stability (my paltry and overlapping words off the cuff), but to see this as necessitating a botox face is just a Greek idea, I think. I had not felt like I could be "orthodox" and think otherwise, but I always knew that at least on the level of "how I experience it" His affections had to be substantial. Anyhow, do you guys agree on the question of impassibility?

Anyhow, it is interesting... I had asked God in prayer two days ago, as I routinely have, to give me more of a heart and heart understanding for Israel if He wanted. I already do have one and pray for Israel every day, but I think I am in a sort of turmoil over it b/c I know so very, very few who have a heart for Messianic roots (including the whole big picture you mention) who do not resort to Judaizing, looking at other pockets of Christianity as apostate and not vehicles God can work through, and other extremisms. I do have friends of a variety of stripes who live in Jerusalem, and I have many Messianic legalists in my life. I do connect with them on some issues but also just want to turn away many times. There is SO MUCH muck to fight through that I find it really wearying. Also, I find it an obstacle both for many Jews and for Gentiles to evangelize them into Christianity with this emphasis, an emphasis that I question to a degree. I guess I'm just not seeing healthy manifestations very often at all (and I do mean groups who have the big picture too... but confuse that for the little picture at some point perhaps... and come up with questionable ideas as to what it means to think like a Jew... I really do not know how to begin sorting it out). Since I have some better known friends in the movement and have a Jewish-sounding name, folks constantly want to add me on FB. I regret some of the adds I have made and have learned to read the walls some first. They can sound great until you start reading the teachings. I don't need more muck to wade through.

Anyhow, it was most interesting to read about a Jewish theologian on the impassibility question and to recognize that this doctrine has even entered Orthodox Jewish thought (I had thought only the liberal reformed movements despite a glancing familiarity with Maimonides).

Blessings, Deb

Re: The Theology of Spiritual Abuse in Christianity Today

rachwolf — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 23:09:50 -0000

Dale,
Thanks for explaining me to Deb. I get so weary trying to explain these things. It seems so impossible to package such big ideas in so few words. I certainly couldn't have done it as clearly (and efficiently) as you did. (I am hearing pleasant echoes of Kendall Soulen in more recent things you've written here and elsewhere.) Thanks! :)

Re: The Theology of Spiritual Abuse in Christianity Today

debjs — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 19:26:02 -0000

Ok, I gave up on finding the thread that started the discussion of moderate foundationalism. But thank you for your generous response, Dale. I do remember the term foundationalist coming up in reading Descartes, but I read a theology textbook, or most of it, on my own w/ relatively little sticking power. That's stuff you need to hash out w/ others really, and illness I am dealing w/ has effected mental capacities as wel. Next time through one of the philosophers it should be more familiar at least. Too bad I didn't have your glosses at the time. I should hold onto your write-up of moderate foundationalism to compare it to thoughts I come up against in the future and my own thoughts as they are further refined.

I at least like much of what you have to say, perhaps all. I do have some hesitations w/ using what is healthy love as the basis for making intellectual decisions b/c of how these words are prone to being redefined modernistically as a challenge to hard truths. I do want the trajectories of Scripture as the clear guide, although recognizing also how Scripture synthesizes with life and multiple sources of knowledge. I'm not saying that the Scriptures are not your clear guide, but I wonder if the description of moderate foundationalism leaves room to question if they are. I also use the Scripture as the basis for determining, for instance, my role (or lack thereof) as a woman and wouldn't want to suggest another basis to others in that debate; that would harm my witness to comps as an egal.

So my eye was also caught by a post on anti-replacement-theology art. I'm not troubled by much of the great church art as apparently you are (?), although yes, Jesus and the disciples could look more Jewish. It would be great if we had remained mindful of that and honoring of that, yet there are benefits, perhaps, in representing Him as contextualized in one's culture and time. But is there really a huge difference in the depiction of the cross, etc.? Is it BAD that these churches did not devote a stained-glass window to a Jewish in-harvest yet to come? There were still saints devoted to the poor, to societal transformations such as would have been blessed by Jewish thought. I'm not exactly arguing. I just really don't know that I do see a big problem in Christian art, and in our efforts to find another path, we do run the risk of trying to raid a Jewish costume shop and even not "earn" our artistic associations, however deeply felt, as one friend recently put it. But this is an interesting topic. One poetry collection I have begun working on deals w/ some Jewish and Christian holidays--a bit of a smorgasboard, one unlikely to please either those heavily invested in one-new-man (who might not like to see the Christian ones in there) or traditional Christians. I'm extremely insecure about my poetry these days, feeling like the quality has depreciated (even as the quantity has) as I've invested in other efforts, and so cannot say if that offering would be a worthwhile dent in this gap or not when it comes together. But it makes me wonder what you have in mind.

Re: The Theology of Spiritual Abuse in Christianity Today

debjs — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 18:42:43 -0000

haha! hit the one word (and less!) per column point (at least on my screen)

Re: The Theology of Spiritual Abuse in Christianity Today

debjs — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 18:41:53 -0000

Now I agree with this post wholeheartedly.

Re: The Theology of Spiritual Abuse in Christianity Today

Dale Fincher — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 18:39:47 -0000

Yeah, the Jewish roots of festivals, celebrations, laws are all surface features of the bigger thing. The bigger thing is that God has only one story for planet earth: The consummation of the world through the Jewish people blessing the nations and the nations blessing her... redemption for this consummation is also through the Jews for the sake of the world. When we remove the Jews or replace the Jews we're forgetting something. It was Jewish blood that spilled on Calvary and the Gentiles, because of that blood happening in the Jewish sacrificial system, are adopted into friendship with the God of Israel.... The God of Israel, says the Scripture, is his name forever.

Re: The Theology of Spiritual Abuse in Christianity Today

Dale Fincher — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 18:32:08 -0000

Here's some technicality on Wikipedia on foundationalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wik.... Chapter 2 of my book, Living with Questions, takes a practical approach of explaining this without big words.

Foundationalism says we can know things in the real world by direct access to them. My eye isn't doing the seeing (that would be indirect). I am seeing through my eyes. Classic foundationalism (a la Descartes) says we not only can know things but we can have 100% certainty of things. Classic foundationalism is what many postmoderns and the "emergent church" argue against. Their alternatives land in coherentism and skepticism, both disconnected from reality and how the average person operates in the world. Normal people who are not ideologically influenced are foundationalists of some kind in the way they function. Foundationalism is the epistemology of western civilization. I think the bible is very foundationalist as it assumes we have access to the real world (despite our "depravity") and have enough tools necessary to reach for God (who is already reaching for us).

Moderate foundationalism, which has been around before postmodernism and "emergent," says we can have knowledge of things without 100% certainty. I can access the real world, but I must use a check and balance of my sources of knowledge. Those are the human tools God has given us to get out of our heads and into the world, asking real questions, approaching a real God. But sometimes our tool for knowledge can be wrong, so we hold it with humility knowing we may need to change our minds tomorrow because what we hold today isn't true (though we thought it was true).

Presuppositional thought often removes the human element at getting at the real world and walls us into parameters of "Scripture only" or "my understanding of God only." (Philosphically, it says belief in God is as properly basic as my perception, reason, etc... which seems very counter-intuitive since my perception is mine and I don't experience perception the way I experience my belief in God or the introspection that I exist, etc). By taking this approach, the person "presupposes" the criteria of which counts for knowledge. On this view, the other tools of human epistemology are suspect and usually cut off because the "Scripture only" criteria has already created the wall. I think on a practical level that presuppositonalism becomes more of a coherentism. Coherentism says that as long as our beliefs don't contradict, it doesn't matter if they match up with the real world. So I can believe in Santa Claus and Easter bunny because my beliefs cohere that such mythical characters exist. But if I allow the reality to be iconoclastic (which is usually is), then that reshapes my belief and I re-think whether the fat man really does break into every house in the world all in one night.

This is what it means to have a worldview shift. Some of the beliefs in the worldview don't cohere and we have to shift our worldview. (This is also why worldview training isn't enough... we must have philosophy training too at how to get at the real world and adjust our worldview.) Or we can be dogmatic and hold to our worldview because that's the only criteria we allow ourselves to consider. When evaluating the truth of something, I want to know whether it coheres to other beliefs AND I want to be informed by the real world. Coherence is good, but it isn't enough. To say we only understand Scripture with Scripture is practical coherentism. It doesn’t allow the reader to test the ideas outside of Scripture (as the wisdom literature Solomon, et al, often tells us to do!).

To be appropriately human, which is our work at Soulation, means we take all the tools available to us. Our basic tools are reason, introspection, perception, memory, and testimony.... from there we build on other beliefs and have access to other knowledge. If we cut any of those off, we lose our humanity in the process. (Another example: scientism today cuts off most of them too but perception and reason and that is also dehumanizing). A lot of people follow religious coherentism today and their humanity is choked. And abuses mount up. And they wonder how else they are to see the world because the criteria for knowledge had already been set. So they give up on the whole thing and wander away.

And this hurts everybody, on my view. Because if a belief is going to be true, it has to lead to health and love. If it doesn't we have to bravely reevaluate that "truth" to remain appropriately human. Health and love is not equal to "good behavior" and not equal to "quoting Bible verses" or "toeing the party line of a particular theological system/denomination." Health and love means we are free to be ourselves and invite others on a journey of faith, mystery, knowledge as friends for the journey, going with what makes sense in community, open to reality at all costs, and adjusting as needed. I know of no other approach to living humanity than that.

Re: The Theology of Spiritual Abuse in Christianity Today

debjs — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 18:11:32 -0000

Gotcha. I hadn't gotten it (call me dense) from Rachel's post that she had this stuff in mind. I was reading some Philosophy recently and saw just how much Paul utilized Greek philosophy, but it was more like a tool for him. We (the Church) took it more as the mode of explanation sometimes than scripture itself. I wasn't thinking in terms of systems of thought in approaching her post. I am very accustomed to people saying that the ills of the church have to do with losing Jewish roots but meaning by this that we need to celebrate Jewish holidays and go back to the law. So although all you say is familiar to one degree or another, for instance, complaints of Greek dualism, I was not understanding that she was getting at that whatsoever.

Thanks.

Re: The Theology of Spiritual Abuse in Christianity Today

Dale Fincher — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 17:58:24 -0000

Hey Deb, Rachel's reference to Jewish roots goes much deeper than what your suggesting. It's actually throws a lot of what we know in "Christianity" on its head.

If those in the Charismatic circles are gentiles keeping Jewish laws, it really isn't about getting to roots for them. Acts 15 explains the obligations of gentiles in the Jewish "church." This is why legalism emerges because people forget the purposes for things... "the letter kills."

You are right to observe legalism in Jesus day. And you are right that legalism can emerge in most circles, including Judaism. However, I think Rachel is speaking to a larger problem that I quite agree with.

In disconnecting not only from Jewish roots but from the Jewish Scriptures and the Jewish people, we are more Gnostic that we realize. Part of the problem of spiritual abuse, as I see it, is the spiritualizing of life rather than the humanizing of it. It is difficult, on my view, to be more human when our calls to doctrine are disconnected from their historical context and human experience. It is difficult when we think of the "church" as God's organization on earth and not Israel. It is difficult when we forget that God's work in the world is deeply political and religious at the same time (a demarcation modernism has created but isn't in Scripture unless under captivity to another nation).

And if we fail to have a Jewish lens on the totality of Scripture (for all of Scripture is mediated through the Jews--Romans 3:1-2), then we make the Scripture into doctrines with Greek concepts rather than the Hebrew ones. In modern times, they are Greek/Enlightenment concepts, heavily influence in the epistemology of Immanuel Kant. Greek thought is notorious for lifting us out of our humanity to platonic norms. Kant abstracts our doing things out of love into doing things because they are good, regardless of benefit ("doing one's duty" is Kantian, not Pauline). So we over blow and abstract ideas like "election" and "depravity" and "glory of God" into ethereal concepts rather than the earthy Jewish concepts that lay behind them. If I allow the Hebrew Scriptures interpret the Apostolic Scriptures (rather than the other way around) this comes much clearer. After all, the concepts of the Hebrew Scriptures are all that the Apostles had in mind. And Paul's "all Scripture is God-breathed" refers to the Hebrew Scriptures first, and only applied to the Apostolic writings after new writings were all collected later.

As Rachel says, this stuff opens up more questions than it answers.

Re: The Theology of Spiritual Abuse in Christianity Today

debjs — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 16:17:03 -0000

Ok, so it took me awhile to find your comment here... the threads w/in threads are kind of dizzying. I wonder how many responses it takes until we have one word fitting in per line of column :).

I agree that modern church leadership today is apt to follow what I would call a business model, and I think it causes problems. For the record, I actually came out of a homechurch that disbelieved in pastors (yet controlled more than most churches WITH pastors), so I've been in both ends of the spectrum.

We do see the apostles saying that they could use their authority to ___ or don't want to use their authority to ___. I believe that their anointing and character, however imperfect, testified to the role God had put them in as one that was to help shape and direct, including discipline and authoritative teaching (even as they would gather to hack out some disagreements). At least in some translations, "spheres" of authority are granted to church leaders, which I think can be a helpful term. Anecdotally, I could give stories of how friends or I appear to keep running into this principle of authority. Mentions of authority are balanced by Paul's saying, "not that we lord it over you" and his writing to the Thessalonians about how they feel like mothers (yes, primacy granted here to the female metaphor :))and fathers at heart to the church. So I see that there is a particular authority and responsibility granted by God to those He selects for particular roles--not those who just build a ministry for their own ego or b/c they studied theology (so what else are they to do?). While this ties into church discipline and the authority w/ which they might speak into lives or establish doctrine, it never excludes those who are ministered to from being good Bereans, being ultimately responsible for their own decisions, and having their own ministries out of the giftings granted them, even if their sphere of influence or authority is smaller and the anointing less profound. Leadership gifts were always intended for the sake of bringing the saints into a maturity of character, unified purpose, and gifting.

As an aside, a year plus ago now, an Indian leader requested that I write a book on "apostles" as a contemporary function from a charismatic perspective. I was really hesitant yet actually had a history of God talking to me about a forthcoming project that seemed to fit his request. So I went ahead but had to cut off that working relationship a few months ago. However, another leader friend is using some of my material in classes he is teaching this year here and in Korea. So we may be revisiting the manuscript in 2011 that he might add a few chapters. I hold the manuscript and its potential publication with a very loose hand despite the ways that God seems to have led me to it. I am ware that the scriptures really do not spell out all leadership dynamics for us but only give us hints at what was going on. I am utilizing the opportunity, however, should it go forward, to correct some charismatic abuses of these positions and to emphasize the character that is needed and the type of heart leaders are to biblically cultivate. It also addresses women in leadership briefly in a way that is supposed to reach out to the comp side as well. Partially b/c the Indian leader was planning to put his name on the book too (although I wrote it all), I had bent over backwards to extend a hand to some different charismatic camps. And some of that may be wise to keep, some not. There is much I would need to weigh.... I have bought and borrowed some books of church history as a potentially useful sounding board. All to say, I have many more hesitant thoughts on this whole area... but that is for a book :).

Deb