sexist, but at least we're not racist

Galatians 3:26-29

The key words are: faith, Abraham's seed, heirs. Paul uses a list of comparisons: Jew and Gentile, slave and free, male and female. He also uses a word picture of putting on Jesus like you put on clothes. His point is that in Jesus, we are all children of God equally and share in the promise equally - no matter our racial heritage, our economic status or our gender. In Jesus we are not only equal we are all the same - we are one; made from one blood and redeemed by one blood.
I wanted to get on my soap box in regard to the gender issue. I wanted to point out that we have no problem (generally, almost exclusively) in the Church saying that it doesn't matter what race you are - you are accepted in Christ and have full participation in the body of Christ. We have no problem (again, almost exclusively) saying that it doesn't matter what economic status you have that in Christ we are equal and have full participation in the body of Christ. We have no problem... o, wait! Apparently when it comes to gender, at least in North American Evangelicalism, we do have a problem. Sure, it doesn't matter what gender you are - you are accepted in Christ and can have full participation in the Body of Christ as long as it doesn't involve women in positions of teaching or authority over a man. I wanted to point that out but I also have to point at myself: where do I show favouritism, sexism, racism, snobbery, etc? Where do I set up segregation and hierarchy in the Body of Christ? I know that I am drawn to the "in crowd", to the popular, the athletic and the good looking. I make it seem that only those have full participation in the youth ministry (and, by default, in the Body of Christ). "there is no difference... for all have sinned... and all are justified freely." (Romans 3:22-24)

you're my favourite

James 2:1-13
These are my thoughts from the past two days. I forgot I had internet access and so I wasn't blogging...

Obvioulsy the key word from this passage is favouritism. James is adamantly against favouritism and again it seems like he especially opposed to any favouritism shown toward the rich. It seems likely from the passage that the rich had done something to really oppose James and possibly the rest of the believers - they are the ones exploiting the believers and suing them in court. To curry favour with the rich, and maybe to prevent themselves from being sued, people were quick to offer them the best spots in the church. James says that this isn't just bad behaviour but it is actually sin as defined by "love your neighbour as yourself."
Who are my favourites? In my ministry, I don't think I give special treatment to the rich but as I coldly evaluate our ministry, I think we might give special attention to the "cool". As I look at who our leadership team spends time with, it is often the cool. To evaluate myself, I have to ask if I am looking for some kind of validation - is it that I couldn't make the cool crowd in school and by hanging out with them now I am somehow proving that I can be cool? Is it that I am worried about my reputation - if I spend too much time with the uncool, do I become uncool? This has really caused me to think about our ministry a lot. Why don't we attract more "at risk" students? Why are most of our students well dressed, good looking and skilled - the so called successful students? Is this just a function of the demographic of our church? Is this whom we've been called to reach or do we have an unfulfilled ministry to others? I'm going to have to continue to wrestle with this one. I do know that if I am playing favourites personally or in the ministry, I am as guilty as an adulterer. That's pretty serious stuff!

Making the list

1 Timothy 5:1-21

First, did widows take some kind of pledge to be faithful to Christ alone after the death of their husband (sort of like being a nun)? Basically, Paul tells Timothy to not put young widows on a list of people needing support from the church because they will eventually get married (their sensual desires will overcome their dedication to Christ). It seems like widows had some sort of special status in the ancient church or ancient culture. Today, I don’t think we would base aid on age but on to what extent they needed it. I can think of several “widows” (made so by death of or abandonment by a husband) who need assistance. The church needs to do a better job of helping those people. I don’t think we should hire a pastor (or director if it is a woman – note the sarcasm!) of helping widows. I think that the church (the community of saints, the body of Christ, not the institution) should take on the responsibility of helping widows (isn't that part of the religion that God approves of - James 2). I think that it should be a function of small groups and of people. Maybe, in a church our size, we need to keep a list like Paul told Timothy to do but I am resistant to institutionalizing this.
Whatever the case, we (the church) need to be better at looking out for the marginalized in our church and our community because a) we need to learn from them. As we seek to be Jesus to them we will find them to become Jesus to us (see Matthew 25) and b) that is where Jesus would be and as his body or ambassadors we should have the same concerns, priorities and ministry as Jesus would if he were here in our community in this time.
In all of this, we must not play favourites. We must not minister to the attractive, the smart, the cool to the exclusion of the others. We must not minister to the others to the exclusion of the attractive, the smart and the cool. We must not minister just in Africa but also in Brocket.