Rob Golding

Amen! Blessings to you, Johanna. May He demonstrate His power in our weakness!

I replied to this comment, but it seems it was deleted. I'll re-write the short version: As per 1 Tim 2:12 etc., I and many other pastors / congregants in the CRC believe the Bible prohibits women from being pastors. The CRC has recognized this position as viable, alongside the pro-women in office position. Unfortunately, many people seem to think that everyone in the CRC must hold to women in office, but this is not the case. To answer your question, Hetty, no, the ordained women in the CRC are not invisible to me. However, yes, I do not think that their ordination is in line with the biblical prescription for ordination. I understand this may be uncomfortable for many, but this is the denomination we are a part of. For more information, please see Eric Van Dyken's helpful post: https://network.crcna.org/topic/church-strategy-mission/church-renewal/thinking-about-third-way-crc-uniquely-qualified-forge

Hi Bonny, thank you for your comment. I am sorry my use of gender-specific language wasn't to your liking, seriously. This is a difficult situation. I am genuinely interested to hear your answer to this question: After prayer and searching the scriptures in community, I have come to the conclusion that the Bible teaches that women cannot be pastors. My position is not rare and it is fully accepted by the CRC, alongside your view. Do you think I should go against my conscience—which says women can't be pastors—and write as if I do not believe that? Or, do you think The Network should edit my writing to reflect something contrary to my conscience? 

Thanks for your response, Bonny. I understand your perspective. As I mentioned, it's a difficult issue. I'm always interested in navigating our "two ways" on women in office. So, thank you for your perspective. In response, I'd say changing articles to be gender-inclusive, with regard to pastoring, solves one problem (yours) while violating another (mine). That is, what about my ability to read something that aligns with my view? Shouldn't that be prioritized as well? Again, just working through this messy issue. Thanks again. 

Thanks for your thoughtful response, Eric. That's actually why I wrote this. I wanted to study John's view of wealth but figured it would be quicker (after initially not finding any easy-to-find resources) to write a post and get feedback. So, you've helped me a lot here. 



I completely agree with your two points. It's hard to define luxury and not point the finger as a hypocrite. Your solution—let each man search his own conscience—is surely the solution.



But, I think the church could do more to help people search their consciences. It's very possible that I feel justified in using expensive goatskin Bibles (of which I have many) on faulty grounds. Perhaps the Spirit could use the words of other Christians to convict me. I'm describing the tension between Christian liberty and living as part of the body of Christ. In my view, currently, the church has done a good job of telling people Jesus's command to sell all for the poor was hypothetical. But, we haven't done a good job asking the question: "Do we even come close to fulfilling that hypothetical?" I like Bonehoeffer's quip about a son "interpreting" his dad's instruction to clean his room: "My dad told me to clean my room. He knows if my room is clean, I'll be happier. So, he is really after my happiness. Therefore, to best obey my father, I should go outside and play instead because that will make me happy." 



Like you say, if you had an armory of expensive guns, you'd call that into question (I have a safe with guns/rifles in it too). So, we all seem to draw the line at some point. For me, it's Christians who own Rolexes (I've met some in CA). How could a Christian justify buying (not inheriting) a $40k watch? But I'm sure I'm much more generous in where I draw the line for myself than for others. And, like you say, it's not my job to draw the line for other people anyway. That said, I think it's good for the church to talk about the line in clear terms to help us all figure out where it is—a tension to be sure. 



I'm reminded of Billy Graham saying, "How can we say we're brothers and sisters with the starving in Africa when we're driving around in Cadillacs?" 

Excellent distinction, Eric. Thank you for that. I think that's the piece I was missing—we should emphasize the principle but leave the application to the individual. That strikes the right chord because there is no clear biblical line in the sand barring stewardship from opulence. However, thinking about it some more, it'll be hard to emphasize the principle without supplying some concrete examples. Saying, "we shouldn't be opulent," may have very little effect without concrete examples since were all master sin-hiders, myself as the foremost. 

Well said. As a hunter myself, I concur. The only thing I'd add, Hetty, is that God says, "kill and eat" to Peter (both imperative verbs, Acts 10:13). If killing and eating animals was as bad as you make it sound, God would be to blame as well! Perish the thought! 

I think the difference there, Dan, is that lavish perfume was used on Christ, like Eric said. On the other hand, spending lavishly on ourselves is very hard to justify biblically.