Your Skeleton is Safe: Signs of Hope in a Cross-Bearing Life from Southern Seminary on Vimeo.

This sermon, “Your Skeleton is Safe: Signs of Hope in a Cross-Bearing Life” (John 19:16-36), was originally preached at Alumni Chapel at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary on Thursday, August 25, 2011. You can find more sermons and other audio from Dr. Moore at our media page.

Dear Dr. Moore,

In the middle of my premarital counseling with our pastor, I found out that my fiance has had, what he calls, ongoing struggles with pornography. I was kind of floored by this because I hadn’t known anything about it until now. One of the things that drew me to this man was his call to gospel ministry.

I remember your question you answered earlier about finding out about a future spouse’s past, but this, to me, is a little further down the road in the process and more is immediately at stake. Can you help me know what to do? Should I just go forward, or what? How will I know that this is sufficiently addressed? And I don’t have much time because the wedding is right around the corner.

Sincerely,
Engaged and Confused

1 Samuel 4:1-22 from Southern Seminary on Vimeo.

This sermon, “Repentance, Not Rebranding: The Horrible Mercy of Owning Your Shame” (1 Sam. 4:1-22), was originally preached at Alumni Chapel at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary on Thursday, October 13, 2011. You can find more sermons and other audio from Dr. Moore at our media page.

Last week while speaking at Princeton I had a chance to sit on the firing line with my favorite professor of jurisprudence, Robert P. George. He’s not just a brilliant legal theorist and the leading voice on natural law and ethics in the nation, he also knows more about country music than I do. And plays Banjo.

We spoke at the James Madison Program’s event, “Faith in America: The Role of Religion in the Public Square.” We talked about evangelicals and politics, the centrality of the church, natural law, the meaning of sola Scriptura—and even, briefly, the extent of the atonement.

You can watch the video of our conversation, posted above (with permission from the James Madison Program). You can also listen to the audio of our conversation, which is posted above, as well.

While I mulled over your question, I wanted to check myself for any ideological filters that might skew my answer. So I imagined an alternative universe in which I am an egalitarian, convinced that the Scripture is gender-neutral on the matter of who should serve as a pastor. In this scenario, your wife is the minister, and you’re a complementarian pastor’s husband. What would I say to her?

Of course, in this universe, I’m a convinced complementarian. I believe the Bible teaches both the equality of the sexes and distinct aspects for the two in some aspects of church and home leadership. My answer, I think, in both situations would be the same.

The call to ministry is almost all-encompassing, and it engulfs an entire family in a mission many of them didn’t choose. This is why, I think, the Apostle Paul tells us it is better, if possible, for a servant of Christ Jesus to be free of such obligations in order to give himself fully to the task (1 Cor. 7:1-2).

For the rest of us though, the call to ministry pulls not only an individual but a one-flesh union itself, a marriage, a family, and all that entails. That can be beautiful and mysterious. I just read Eugene Peterson’s majestic autobiography, The Pastor, and was moved by his description of his wife’s sense of mission.

“For Jan, ‘pastor’s wife’ was not just being married to a pastor; it was far more vocational than that, a way of life,” Peterson reflects. “It meant participation in an intricate web of hospitality, living at the intersection of human need and God’s grace, inhabiting a community where men and women who didn’t fit were welcomed, where neglected children were noticed, where the stories of Jesus were told, and people who had no stories found that they did have stories, stories that were part of the Jesus story.”

Peterson found, he writes, early in his ministry that his marriage was more than an intentional partnership. There was an interaction there that was below the level of consciousness. “Interaction is too tame a word,” he writes. “The conjunction was catalytic.”

When I read those words, I smiled with recognition. At the most basic level, that’s what every marriage should be: catalytic. In the ministry, that’s certainly true. In our context, a pastor’s wife is a crucial aspect of the ministry, and that is glorious.

What Peterson is talking about isn’t the stereotype. Let’s be gone with the days when the pastor’s wife is expected to play the piano or serve as a Christified Barbie doll, waving, smiling, and hosting. It’s instead a couple sharing a life together, a life that includes carrying the teachings of Jesus to men, women, and families wrestling against demons.

This is where, I think, your differences on what are (so clinically and reductionistically) called “gender roles” do matter. Because of her place in the congregation, your wife will probably find herself, soon and often, in the Titus 2:3-5 situation of leading women younger in the faith. In our alternative universe, the pastor’s husband will also be highly visible in his unity, or lack thereof, with his wife’s calling. Ironically enough, my word of caution here isn’t because of what a woman “can’t  do” in ministry, but because of how crucial her ministry is.

A husband and wife need not agree on everything. But, whatever your view, the issue of male/female relationships will persist as an issue for the sanctification of men, women, and families in your church. If a woman in your church feels herself called to preach, will your wife and you be compelled, by your consciences, to give her opposing counsel?

More likely, what will your wife say when a woman in the congregation confides that she’s facing a struggle about how to submit to her husband in some decision? Will your wife be in the awkward situation of trying to speak from her conscience, about what she believes God would have her to say, without contradicting what you taught in your sermon series on Ephesians. I would say the same in our alternative universe to the complementarian husband who is trying to counsel a church member about how on earth to apply “mutual submission” in his marital context.

Finally, I’m not sure what egalitarian Russell off in the alternative universe would say at this point, but I know what I must say in this world, and it’s more important than all the rest above. You are called to a self-sacrificial headship in your marriage. This means you love your wife, and you do what’s best for her, even to the point of crucifying your own ambitions, your own callings, and even your own life (Eph. 5:25-30). Don’t put your wife in the situation in which she must choose between loyalty to you and fidelity to what she believes. If that means serving the Lord in some way other than the pastorate, so be it. Your marriage is more important than your ministry.

I am not saying you shouldn’t be a pastor. I am saying that you probably should wait a while. You and your wife should devote some time to prayer and conversation about how you will be united in ministry on matters like these. You may find that, praying and searching the Scriptures together, your views (as often happens in marriages) come closer together. Or you may find a way for your wife to cooperate with you in your ministry with a unified front without compromising either conscience.

If that’s the case you may find that your wife is more “complementarian” than you think.

What’s your ethical dilemma? Send me an email at questions@russellmoore.com

Dear Dr. Moore,

I am a young evangelical minister, currently serving as an associate pastor in a church. I believe God has called me to serve as a senior pastor. I read your Q&E commentary a while back about the doctrinally-divided couple wondering if they should marry. I’ve got a problem that may be similar, but I think is also quite different.

I’m committed to what some would call a “traditionalist” Christian view of gender roles. I believe a husband is to be head of the household, to be the servant leader of his wife (Eph. 5:22ff). I also believe, as the confession of faith of your denomination puts it, “while both men and women are gifted for service in the church, only men as qualified by Scripture are called to serve in the office of pastor.” I am what, I suppose, would be called in our contemporary evangelical lingo a “complementarian.”

I am married to a godly, loving, very gifted woman. She loves Jesus and knows his word. She’s also a committed feminist. By that, I don’t mean that she’s a radical or anything. But she is what some would call an “egalitarian.” She believes both men and women are called to the office of pastor, that women can teach men or do anything men can do in the church, and that husbands and wives are to “submit to one another” (Eph. 5:21), so that neither leads the home but decisions are made by consensus.

I am not wondering if she’s the right woman for me. First, we’re already married and, second, I wouldn’t have it any other way. She is the love of my life. My question is, can I serve as a pastor with this situation as it is? Must my wife and I have agreement on an issue that will be so directly relevant to how I preach, teach, counsel, and lead the congregations God calls me to serve? Will this be confusing to the people to whom I am ministering?

In or out of ministry? What should I do?

A Complementarian Man

Readers, what do you think? Advise this brother and sister in the comments below. Oh, and send me your ethical dilemma to questions@russellmoore.com. If selected for Q&E, I’ll answer here confidentially.

This sermon, “Crucify Your Life-Plan: Following Jesus to Your Skull-Shaped Future” (John 21:18-23), was originally preached at Alumni Chapel at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary on Thursday, February 17, 2011.

Dear Friend,

The people of God, it seems to me, are perpetually pulled toward replacing a “both/and” ethic with an “either/or.” That’s what I think might be happening here.

Don’t get me wrong. The Scripture is often “either/or.” It is either God or Baal, either Jesus or Mammon, either Spirit or carnality. A “both/and” ethic in any of these places leads to disaster. But think about how often a “both/and” ethic is wrecked by a false “either/or.” The Scripture teaches both grace and obedience, both mystery and clarity, both Jesus’ humanity and Jesus’ deity, both local discipleship and global missions. To choose one in opposition to the other leads to a false choice that winds up tearing down the whole conversation.

I am glad that you see the Christian imperative to care for orphans and widows. I’m glad you see it through the grid of the gospel of Christ. I’ve spent the last decade of my life calling for such a vision. What you’re suggesting here though doesn’t serve the end you think it serves.

Family isn’t simply an incidental matter of biology. You’re right about that. Family is built on an already existing pattern, the pattern of the gospel. That’s why our adoption in Christ means we ought to care about the adoption of children. The gospel leads us to the mission, and the mission leads us to back to the gospel. That pattern is missional, yes, but the pattern is also incarnational. Both matter.

Adoption, in Scripture, doesn’t form a different type of family. This isn’t an altogether unique sort of relationship. Instead, in the gospel, we are adopted “as sons” (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:5). This language of “sons” is really important because God has already trained humanity to recognize the concept of fathers and sons, parents and children, and he has done so through procreation.

At the very beginning of the biblical story, God commands humanity to “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:28). Then God, almost immediately, takes us to the “begats” of the various genealogies. God’s favor and God’s mercy are seen in the birth of children, which the Scripture everywhere regards as blessing.

Why? Well, this is because procreation (like marriage) is a picture of the gospel. God’s love for us took on flesh, in the person of our Lord Jesus (Jn. 1:14), an Incarnation that causes us to be “begotten” as the children of God (Jn. 1:12; 3:6-7; 1 Jn. 5:1). The love between Jesus and his church is fruitful, and it multiplies. He stands before his Father, with his people, and proclaims, “Here I am and the children God has given to me” (Heb. 2:13).

Adoption only makes sense in light of procreation. A child who is adopted is adopted into an already existing concept, that of parents and children. Scripture uses both archetypes, that of adoption and that of procreation.

If we idolize procreation, as though family were merely about bloodlines, we repudiate the gospel that has saved us. But if we turn away from procreation altogether, adoption is no longer adoption “as sons.” The metaphor then attaches merely to a living arrangement, not to the natural family. Adoption is more, cosmically more, than a living arrangement. The adoption of children makes sense in light of the begetting of children.

Before we can care for orphans, we must ask why there are orphans in the world. The answer includes a variety of reasons, from divorce to poverty to warfare to natural disasters and the list goes on and on. The best thing that can happen for orphans is for children to be welcomed and wanted, to be received as Jesus always receives little children. Before we can love children as orphans, we must love children as children.

The congregation that disciples its own members and cares for those immediately around, but refuses to join with Jesus in reaching the ends of the earth is not a faithful church. Likewise, the congregation that sends missionaries all over but refuses to love its own local neighbors is unfaithful. In either case, an “either/or” leads to error. It should be “both/and.”

I would counsel you not to permanently incapacitate your procreative capacity. Even apart from Christian disagreements about contraception or family size, we can all agree that the birth of children is pictured by God as blessing not burden (Ps. 127:3).

Don’t see your potential future love for your birthed children as some scarce commodity, that then must be taken away from your children you might adopt or foster. Love isn’t a commodity, and it isn’t parceled out. Love isn’t limited, and it isn’t a barrier to ministry.

Love “bears all things…endures all things” (1 Cor. 13:7). Have babies, and love your babies. Minister to orphans, and pray for God’s wisdom in how best you might care for the orphans and widows in your neighborhood and around the world.

Yes, you are right that marriage and family inhibit the freedom one has to do certain things in ministry. The Apostle Paul celebrates those who give up family for the sake of ministry, but this, in the apostolic example, entails a giving up of marriage itself (1 Cor. 7:1). Once there is marriage, one cannot simply cut apart the conjugal realities for the sake of ministry.

That’s why, for instance, Paul warns against those that would toss aside marital sex for ministry’s sake (1 Cor. 7:5). The decision to have sex with one another, the Bible indicates, was made at the altar. When a couple has sex, then, they are not “depriving” any other ministry of anything. When they refuse for an extended period of time, though, they are “depriving” one another.

It might be that God will not give you children biologically, and instead will spur you all the quicker toward adoption or foster care. It could be that God will show you how to welcome children both by adoption and by the more typical way. And it could be that your love for the children you welcome by birth might be the signal to your church and your neighbors to love children, and thus welcome children who have been orphaned.

It’s “both/and,” not “either/or.” Adopting for life doesn’t demand accepting the knife.

What’s your ethical dilemma? Send it to me at questions@russellmoore.com