Sickness and Death in the Anthropology of Capitalism

Towards the closing of Stanley Hauerwas’ work, A Better Hope, my attention was grasped a short chapter on sickness and death. Hauerwas provoked me to consider why our Western construal of death so often discloses a desire for a quick and painless death. We desire a quick death to avoid consciousness of what is happening.

Old age itself is something that Westerners fear, and I think it is because once one is retired then one is no longer a producer. Time becomes pointless in a capitalist society if it can no longer be equated with labor hours. As old age sets in we are forced to become pure consumers, which is the time to supposedly remove the alienation between producer and product. Once the worker can no longer work, I think an even deeper alienation emerges, or at least one realizes how distant they are from relationality. Marx’s critique of capitalism is quite correct, but his error lies in his anthropology. Instead of the being-as-laborer in Marx’s system, I think that the being-as-personal is a much better understanding of the human, and a personal being is necessarily a relational being.

Hauerwas correctly notes how our Western view of freedom adds to the fear of death, in that, we have no choice in both sickness and death. In our effort to become divine we cannot escape these conditions, which I think should call us humbly to a hermeneutics of finitude (theologically speaking, sin is very important here). Hauerwas asserts:

“In short, modernity names those social order in which freedom became our fate. As a result we suffer from those forms of life we believe necessary to make use free. We desire to be free from illness, and illness is now understood as any condition that limits my choices. Sickness names those aspects of my life I have not chosen. This creates the desire to modern people to find the ’cause’ of their illness in some ‘lifestyle’ choice: such a ’cause’ at least makes their suffering intelligible.”

So many Christians are quick to demand healing, but even the blind man that was healed by Jesus in John 9 eventually died. Death is inevitable. Instead of a response of fear, we should have motive of love – “perfect love casts out all fear.” Love directs the self to the other (this is where Marx misses it I think). Instead of human beings living for production/consumption, we should live for the other (God and neighbor). Thus the anticipation of death in old age should provoke us to think of the other, and to construe time qualitatively with an emphasis on spending time with persons and not hiding away in fear and acceptance of capitalistic alienation.

De Laus

I was reflecting on praise and worship today as my title, “on praise,” discloses. Most Christians that I know think worship is either singing with a certain ecstatic experiential expectancy (an unintentional alliteration). Worship is one of the things that has frustrated me since there are so many extremes. I appreciate liturgy now because I have come to loathe the shallow nature of much charismatic worship. Liturgy, although, sometimes lacks the embodiment and incarnation that is present in charismatic worship. I’m trying to synthesize the two somehow.

I think that a good worship song should have two major components: good art and good theology. By good art I mean a good use of form/content. I noticed that many worship songs, especially Hillsongish ones, are usually just a random amalgamation of various phrases like “I love you,” “you are good,” “you love me” – which has content analogous to the Barney song. I assert the need to overcome Barney art. We must be Post-Barney in ecclesial worship. I want to see songs that are rich with theology and with scripture. Instead of anthropocentric creations with no transcendence, I want to participate in worship with songs that depict the totality of God’s nature – even his wrath and judgment.

So many Christians are eager to criticize secular music, but what is “secular”? As a Christian can one actually believe that there is something separate from God? No one criticizes Rodin or Monet for not sculpting or painting propositional truths about God. They have good art and most worship songs don’t. We should not settle for pathetic art and let so-called “secular” art and music exceed our own creativity. We must advance a new aesthetics, a strongly Christian aesthetics that can efficaciously change our idea of art in worship. My interest now is to see who can add to the conversation. I ask friends and visitors alike to respond with ideas. Please don’t be shy.

Evan Almighty: A Biblical Recontextualization

In a comical and Bible-pun-filled film, Steve Carell and his bewildered family participate in a Hollywood retelling of the Genesis flood account. I was quite surprised to see Carell in this family-friendly film that is definitely safe for the less-than-40-year-old-virgin-eyes. The movie was entertaining and full of clever biblical allusions and other witty features like a GEN614 license plate and even the choice of names (wife Joan – Joan of Arc).

The film gave a critique on greedy power figures (Congressman Long) who stand in opposition to environmental harmony and good stewardship. This film emphasizes family and community, and it requests “repentence” from those who have evil desires for the world and its diverse inhabitants. Thus “Evan Almighty” has a strong humanistic undertone to it, which is of course a good thing, and quite biblical too.

Theology? “Sin” is reinterpreted as wrong action towards world/community, which perhaps evokes a slight pantheism, although that may be a little bit of eisegesis on my part. The script also discloses a God who is very immanent and in the day-to-day life. Though they never mention Jesus explicity, the divine Morgan Freeman is definitely portraying a Jesus-like figure, especially with his strongly ethical message. Thus perhaps one could see a Social Gospel intertwined into this film’s theology. My other observations lead me to suggets that perhaps this theology is close to process theism, since “God” provides opportunities, but does not make the individual do them (recall Morgan Freeman’s character’s conversation with Evan’s wife Joan). Though the Grizzly Adams makeover and the dam-break are perhaps good indications of God’s sovereign abilities.

So definitely go see “Evan Almighty.” Good film and an interesting recontextualization of the biblical flood.

Techno-Subjectivity: ‘Facing’ Inauthentic Alterity

Before I begin my little diatribe against particular communicatory devices, I would just like to say that they are very annoying. Whether I’m walking in a store or standing in line at a coffee shop someone with a bluetooth phone in their ear starts talking away, and I wonder if they are talking to themselves or something. So my critique is definitely personal. I am offended.

Let us first note that etymologically the Greek word techne refers to craft or art, that is, the development of a thing for practical use. Craftsmanship was an art that needed a particular knowledge or applied wisdom to perform. Utility was the object of the art, and thus today we have technology, which allows certain tasks to be accomplished more efficiently.

The bluetooth phone, however, is an example of a violent transformation of the utility of techne. No longer is the tool simple something to be used, it is now a part of the human subject. While other objects such as glasses or clothing are also impersonal items that appear on the human, they are fulfilling their purpose by being there. Even non-essential fashion items that have no real utility still fulfill a purpose by just being what they are. These phones, however, are in people’s ears even while they are not being used. They have been accepted as a part of the human. When I encounter a person with this phone on their heard I do not feel welcomed by the other. The other, instead of giving full attention to the person that they are facing, rejects this aesthetic encounter by participating in dichotomized communication.

I mean, the person has a real other in front of them and a distant other connected to them on their head. At any moment attention could shift away from the real person to the person on the phone and priority is given to the invisible over the visible, to the incorporeal over the corporeal. One may point out that perhaps this is what happens with any sort of cell phone, whether on the head or in a pocket. I agree, it is a shame that we carry little electronic devices as if they were deities, and then we worship them when they make noise. These bluetooth phones, however, have an even more devastating effect on authentic subjectivity, and that is because they are on the face at all times as if this person is giving the message that they wish to become mechanical and possess the face of efficiency over the face of aesthetic beauty.

What should we do? Should we become Amish? No, avoiding extremes is the best solution. We should let technology be what it should be. Tools should only have utilitarian function and never be accepted as a part of the authentic human subject. A practical way of doing this would be to just get rid of the bluetooth phones, or at least not wear them in public but in a private office or something.

Biblical Inerrancy? Karl Barth’s Ontology of Scripture

Is the Bible inerrant? Several evangelicals assert that one must hold to biblical inerrancy/infallibility in order for the Bible to be authoritative. This postion, however, seems to be much closer to Modernism and Cartesian epistemology than to what the biblical text says itself. Inerrancy is a modern agenda that much be forced onto the text before one can extrapolate it from the text. Thus it is not proper contextual exegesis. So do we through away biblical authority too? No, we proceed with faith through a position of critical realism. I believe that the Bible becomes the Word of God through the work of the Holy Spirit in illumination. With this position I not only can maintain my belief in the Bible’s authority, but I can also accept the deliverances of science and biblical criticism. For my academic work on this subject please read my paper, “Karl Barth’s Ontology of Holy Scripture.” I have uploaded it for your reading pleasure.

Karl Barth’s Ontology of Holy Scripture

I also wish to disclose a quote from T.F. Torrance, who is a very important British theologian and also a scholar in Barth’s thought:

You see, in their dualist way of thinking, evangelicals divide God from holy scripture. And then, to make holy scripture divine, they identify the words of scripture witht he words of God – as though God in himself spoke a human language. In a way that’s a mythologising, an anthropologising, of God. This means, therefore, that they don’t interpret the holy scriptures as referring to truth independently of the scriptures, and therefore they have deified the scriptures. In turn, that means that you end up with God versus scripture or scripture versus God – and that Barth won’t have. In a way, it’s a kind of positivism of holy scripture.

(That quote was taken from an interview with Andrew Walker in Betraying the Gospel: Modern Theologians and Christian Orthodoxy, pages 69-70).

Professor Torrance also made an interesting connection between Roman Catholicism and Fundamentalism through the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Though most Evangelicals believe that this doctrine is contained in the RC Church only, Torrance contends that Fundamentalists also utilize the Immaculate Conception – not in reference to Mary – but rather in reference to the Bible. In both traditions then the Word of God (Jesus) can only come through a prior perfection, whether it be a perfect mother (RC’s belief about Mary) or a perfect text (Fundamentalism’s Innerrancy).

(From a lecture series on Christology delivered at Union Theological College in Belfast, Ireland).

The Response

The following is an exact copy of the email I sent to Pastor Wendell Smith including my response to the handout on doctrinal questions. That handout is included in the blog post below this one.

————-

I received a copy of your handout to the leaders on 2/3/07 and was concerned that the questions were not answered. The following is a response done in as much humility and love as possible, but my studies are in philosophy and theology, so when I rebut an argument I will not always sound friendly. I was a member at your church for 5 years, so I do not speak as an outsider.

A Response to the Pastor’s Response to Doctrinal Questions

1. Divorce/Remarriage

Firstly, you cannot construe this question as a “blanket judgment.” I know of individuals in YP who have left the church because of this issue. They observed in person the approval of the marriage of divorcees who had not divorced for biblically sound reasons. So please do not give an emotional rebuttal here and give a blanket judgment that every concerned individual about this issue is making a “blanket judgment.”

2. Prosperity Gospel

Yes, I have read the book on prosperity. And yes, I have been to the conferences. In fact, I have volunteered at the prosperity conference many times, so this response is built on both rational and experiential evidence. In your response you do not even address the problem. The concern here is not that you are preaching an open “material” gospel, but instead the concern here is that you are preaching a “material” gospel disguised as a “prosperity” gospel. Of course you reject the “covetous approach to life or money.” The fundamental problem in all this is that you have defined prosperity in a material fashion. You may say that you don’t, but I think your expensive lifestyle demonstrates that you do embrace material things. This lifestyle is indeed the antithesis of what Jesus lived and that is why concerns are raised.

Your prosperity manual teaches that Jesus was rich, really? Well he had no place to lay his head, he probably worked for 30 years as a carpenter because he had no money, and when he needed money for taxes he told his disciples to look inside the mouth of a fish – come on, you know you are broke when you look inside a fish for money! Your argument here consists of the seamless robe, the burial grounds, and the fact that Judas stole a lot of money. That is no argument! Any bum on the street can get a nice gift… I know a bum in Bellevue that got a $300 jacket last week from a wealthy man… so what? Someone honored Christ with his burial ground and that proves he was rich? So Judas took some money, but we don’t know how much and we don’t know if Jesus did or did not know what was going on. Your argument is built on speculation and opinion and not on solid exegetical biblical text. Of course the early church was not rich either, but of course you use the same speculation to argue so.

What is so damaging to the church about this prosperity anti-gospel is that it turns the church into a business. What do the lost people in the world see when they see the prosperity gospel? They see another tele-evangelist that wants their money, and wants to control their lives. That is not what Christ preached and there is no (other) gospel; the gospel is Christ crucified and not money.

Why did not the prosperity gospel emerge 200 years ago? Why had this “truth” not been preached throughout the totality of church history? Because it is a western, middle/upper class American, consumerist, capitalist, utopian gospel of ignorance. It was birthed out of a prosperous nation, in which multimedia and entertainment companies were making lots of money and people in the church simply baptized this humanist message into the church and christened it “the prosperity gospel.”

I’m afraid that your argument here for the universality of the prosperity message fails significantly. You may point to your “African” churches in South Africa or Zimbabwe, but I have been to City Life Church in South Africa and it is in the richest part of Africa. The church is mostly white and the message of prosperity was imported there from America and works with western-minded individuals.

Lastly, I am concerned that you try to cover your back with City Ministries and big offerings to other nations. All big businesses give money away to good organizations and to the poor… they get good tax write-offs. Even terrible and greedy businesses give millions away, but that does not prove that what they stand for is good or charitable! Even the poor interns that serve their hearts out at the church get robbed from your way of running things. They pay money to work for you and you save thousands by not having to hire more employees. When these interns go on mission trips and an offering is taken for them, where does the money go? Not to the interns, but to the missions pastor, or somewhere else, but not to where it was intended to go. I have been on many City Church mission trips before so I speak from experience.

3. Word of Faith

Firstly, Romans 10 has nothing to do with the Word-Faith movement. The context of that verse is about salvation and the profession of faith in Christ… it has nothing to do with name it/claim it! This heretical movement does not belong in churches that call themselves orthodox, and in fact it is considered a cult in any evangelical listing of cults and heretical movements (see articles by Pentecostal scholar Gordon Fee). There are no creditable theologians or Bible scholars that support this movement, but many speak strongly against it.

Hagin & co teach that human beings are little gods that can control the world through spiritual power. As Dr. Cho teaches, if you imagine a bicycle long enough and pray hard enough it will become reality (Global Conference 2001). This teaching is rooted in eastern metaphysics and spiritual practices that are incongruent with scripture. Pastor Fred Kropp supports this teaching and explains salvation and the Christian life as a process of speaking words that bring down promises from heaven. Salvation becomes equated to a bank account that we put prayer points in and pull out whatever we need at any time. This message is antithetical to the early church that suffered and was persecuted. Now Christians don’t suffer, but they are blessed and live rich lifestyles because of what Jesus Christ suffered for… come on!

Secondly, there is no power in words because words are nothing themselves. Post-structuralism and philosophy of language shows that words are nothing but symbols that point to more words. They do not exist as any objective entity. It doesn’t matter if I say (faith) or (hdkei) there is no difference only in the meaning that a community gives it, and we call this language. What language does God speak? Speech may demonstrate our emotions or where our heart is, but it does not cause people to be healed (or made sick), or anything else.

Lastly, the Word-Faith movement is built on a misunderstanding of the Greek language. There is no difference between rhema and logos. They are synonyms that can be used interchangeably. One does not mean “spoken” and the other “written”. Why does your church support something that is so heretical? It sounds to me that you are probably aware of the problems with Word-Faith so you call yourselves a faith church and defend it by saying, “what is wrong with faith?” Nothing is wrong with biblical faith, but a lot is wrong with the Faith movement. I think you are trying to salvage this sinking ship by taking what you want from it and trying to avoid the bad press. In my opinion, let the Word-Faith ship sink and go back to a biblically sound picture of faith!

4. Sermon on hell (I think you guys are fine here)

5. Tithing

I think you have a misunderstanding of the descriptive/prescriptive nature of scripture. Not everything that is in the Bible should be practiced today. Unfortunately because your church lacks Bible scholars and theologians you maintain a hit-and-miss hermeneutic or a whatever-works-or-sounds-good interpretative methodology. Thus when you get to difficult biblical issues you just go with what works, rather than truth.

You respond to this problem by pointing at Abraham. So he gave money to a priest in the Old Testament, so what? Abel offered a burnt sacrifice and yet you don’t do that! You interpret that to be singing and giving praise and worship, and yet your interpretation is not consistent because when you get to Abraham and OT tithing, you interpret that to be a literal 10% giving of finances. Just because he is the father of faith does not mean that we should do everything he did (lying for example). And in the book of Hebrews the context of the verses on tithing is on the inadequacy of the priesthood and the need for a new one! The author of Hebrews uses an OT example to show the need for a better covenant (verse 22). This is not prescriptive rather it is descriptive. I think that as a mega-church you need money to fuel your endeavors and by not teaching tithing you jeopardize your existence. For a case study look at Mars Hill Church in Seattle: they do not teach mandatory tithing, they do not talk about growth all the time or obsess with people-counts, and they trust that God will provide. Mars Hill is growing faster than City Church, it is larger in a shorter amount of time of existence, and they didn’t even want to grow. Instead of buying multi-million dollar properties to fit 200 people in, they invest their money into the community, into their church planting network, etc. They don’t even take an offering and yet people give freely (of course they pay their pastors modestly).

The other scripture you use in your argument is Matt 23:23. Let me include this in full text:

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummim, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.”

First of all, the tone of this passage is a rebuke, which is not a good text to take as prescriptive for an action one should do now. The purpose of the law is to point to Christ, but Christ did not preach against the law. Instead he fulfilled it. While he was on the Earth he did not wish to overthrow Judaism, so his purpose in telling the scribes and Pharisees to continue to obey the law cannot be recontextualized today. The point of that passage is to show that if they were obeying ALL of the law, then they wouuld have recognized Jesus as the Messiah.

The giving of money today should be done in the community of believers (which is the church). Too many people think that if they write an impersonal check and place it in an impersonal bucket, which goes to an impersonal bank account that they have fulfilled their duty and have tithed to the church. The church is not a building, or a business, but it is the body of believers. Unfortunately many people don’t want to get to know the families in the church, especially the poorer and needy ones. So they give money to a church to do the hard work for them. Thus they are missing the entire point of tithing! The point of the law is right relationship between God and man. By loving others and giving them money we are fulfilling the OT law and participating in the NT model of fellowship and sacrifice. The “local” church is not a biblical term or concept, but it is a modern/contemporary western creation to keep money under the power of church leaders. Of course a lot of the money goes to people who need it, but a lot of it does not and that is the problem.

6. Latter Rain Doctrine (This question is just silly)

A few additional comments

There are a lot of good things going on in the City Church and a lot of people are truly working for the kingdom, but there is a lot going on that is wrong and it needs to be brought into the light. There is no standard for Bible interpretation. If you are a good speaker you can cover up your ignorance with speech techniques, stories, and charisma. Sending some more leaders to Bible college would help with over 80% of these doctrinal problems. Unfortunately people are not allowed to criticize anything in the church because of fear. City Church uses a John Bevere (not Bible) strategy for keeping everyone under control. One does not criticize their leader because one is afraid of losing their authority covering and getting attacked by demons. This is not nonsense it is actually how I lived for years. The church is run like a business with a president as the senior pastor and a CEO as the executive pastor. They exclude themselves from the masses and enjoy the company of the wealthy and the politicians. Instead of serving those beneath you as Christ commanded the church reverses it and demands service to the leaders. They keep you working in fear and in hope that if you are cool enough, dress right, and look and talk exactly like the pastors, then someday you can make it and be in the club. Many people serve hard and never get recognized, they leave the church, and no one ever knows. It is sad to stand during the worship time at Mars Hill and look around and see all the intern alumni around me. Many were cell leaders, on staff, and many served City Church wholeheartedly for years and now they are gone. Why? Because once they realized what was really going on at City Church everything clicked together and they were horrified with what was going on. It only took me two days to put the puzzle pieces together, and yet even after I left I still went back out of fear for what might happen to me. My advice is to open up! Bring the problems out into the open and discuss them. Quit trying to sound like everything is perfect and quit promoting a false utopian Christian life! Send some people to school and let them have a say in what the church is doing. There must be honesty and humility in the Sunday morning service. Don’t hype it up and woe everyone into giving, or talk five minutes about how great the speaker is – just preach Christ and how the entire Bible points to him! There are a lot of people there that love people, keep that up, but don’t make it too fake, be genuine and don’t give the best seat in the house to the ones in suits. Do what James says and do not show favoritism. Who cares what it looks like on TV! You cannot be a church and a business at the same time. One gives and the other takes away – those two methods are incompatible. And finally, take concerns and questions seriously and don’t blow them off with an emotional appeal. Get someone who can actually think and reason and get some problems taken care of!

Therefore it is safe to conclude that the doctrinal issues found in The City Church are largely due to the lack of intellectual scholarship and training in biblical studies. Not only are you unable to answer any of these questions in a logically and scripturally consistent fashion, but you structure your responses in a manner that seeks to make the questioner feel guilty and in the wrong for questioning. In order to back up your arguments I would love to some scholarly work, or anything written or taught by someone with an earned Ph.D or D.Min from a creditable university.

I write this because I still care about many people in your church and they deserve to hear the truth! It is not too late to address these problems and change.

In Christ’s love,

Craig Vander Hart
(former)
2 year Generation Intern
Custodial Supervisor
Jr. High Cadre Leader

The Questions

The following is a list of questions and responses from Pastor Wendell Smith:

———

The City Church 02-03-07

Pastor’s Response to Doctrinal Questions

1. Divorce/Remarriage – Does the City Church allows remarriage after divorce in most circumstances?

There are many debatable issues that the local church has to deal with. We certainly could draw a hard line on remarriage as some have· done or we could conscientiously appeal to the mercy and forgiveness of God for new beginnings for people who have suffered through divorce. What you would not know would be the confrontations we have made with most in regard to reconciling with their former mate.

Be careful in your blanket judgments not to assume you know what has happened in the hearts and lives of couples who have experienced the pain of these things. Do you feel there is no case of divorce where a person could be re-married? Even God “remarried” Israel in the Old Testament after having divorced her!

2. Prosperity Gospel – the City Church preaches the Prosperity Gospel and bring in many speakers to support their view. In our estimation, this doctrine teaches us to focus on the exact opposite of what Jesus taught. Preaching on self-denial and picking up your cross are neglected, while we are taught to seek the material blessings of God.

You are in error if you think we “focus on the opposite of what Jesus taught” or that we are teaching people to

“seek the material blessings of God”. We reject that covetous approach to life or money and have said so from the pulpit-repeatedly. Have you read our book on the purpose of prosperity?

Have you attended the conferences we have held with an open mind and heart? Have you searched the scriptures to see if these things are so? (Acts 17) Our people have been so blessed because they have given away millions of dollars for the Gospel- to nations, missionaries, churches, orphans and the poor. Which of these things should we stop?

In regard to neglecting teaching on the Cross, you apparently are also unaware that the foundation of The City Church was based on a seminar on the “cross” and denying ourselves.

3. Word of Faith – We believe at least some of the pastors of the City Church subscribe to the “Word of Faith” doctrine, and have taught it from the pulpit. This doctrine is unscriptural, and I believe attacks the sovereignty of God and e.xalts the will of man.

Although my background is not from the faith movement, I do believe Romans 10 says we have a “word of faith” in our mouths to preach the Gospel. And that we are to speak faith to circumstances and situations in our life. Our Lord Jesus Himself said we are to speak to mountains with faith.

You believe we ”attack” the sovereignty of God? Have you worshipped with us? Have you heard us pray or prophesy? If your perspective were accurate, you would know what a balanced view of both God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility we preach.

4. I never heard a sermon on heIl- I don’t think we as Christians need to be “fire and brimstone” preachers, but Jesus talked quite a bit on the subject, so I believe we should be educated on the subject.

I have preached on hell. But if you are so concemed about emphasizing what Jesus emphasized then these are the facts; There are only 15 passages on hell addressed by Jesus in all four Gospels combined. However, there are over 600 passages where Jesus speaks of Money!

5. Tithing – I find no support in scripture for New Testament believers to be held to the law of tithing. The only time tithing is mentioned in the New Testament is when Jesus was scolding the leaders who were under the old covenant. We are taught to be generous givers, but we are not under the law any more.

Have you not read all the Scriptures? Do you believe NT believers should not read or obry OT scripture as well as the New? Was not Abraham the first to tithe 430 years beftre the law? He is the father of all who believe even in the NT era (Rom 4; Gal 3) The prophets prophesied about the tithe. And Jesus did mention it and endorsed it (Matt 23:23). It is also taught in the NT book of Hebrews (Heb 7).

Is tithing the issue in your heart or is it a control issue? Do you have a problem with New Testament authority in the Local church or someone telling you what to do? Have you surveyed those who tithe and asked them if they are blessed or hurt? Do you truly believe our people feel forced to give?

6. Latter Rain Doctrine – Although I do not know the official position of the City Church, I found that Kevin Connor is a teacher who came out of the “later rain” movement. From what I can glean in the few messages I heard on the “end times” I understand the Church’s position leans toward “latter rain”.

The “Latter Rain” outpouring and revival was in the late ftrties. What part of a spiritual renewal are you criticizing? Although there are extremes in every revival we do not discount them all. Is it not possible to glean the best from a move of God and reject the excesses?

7. Women as Elders and Pastors – Paul laid out the qualifications of elders and pastors (husband of one wife). We believe that the Bible is clear on this teaching.

Although the issue of women serving as Elders may be debatable by some, each local church must determine what they believe. What specifically do you disagree with? That women should be silent in the church? Has there been any specific offense that has occurred because women are involved in leading the church?